Why Do Many Readers Hate Us Again? (barf alert)

Why Do Many Readers Hate Us Again?
Jones: Press Must Respond To End Of 9/11 Romance

By Alex S. Jones

The newest polls about the press are discouraging enough to make even H.L. Mencken weep. The public, which had admired us in the months after Sept. 11, has turned against us again. Nearly half those responding in the most recent Pew Research Center poll seem to think that we "don't stand up for America," and a majority believe we "don't care about the people we report on." Generally, polling numbers have gone back to pre-9/11 levels.

This seems undeserved, given the torrent of money that has been spent by news organizations after 9/11 (despite the advertising drought). And it is in spite of the risks run by scores of reporters to cover a war in Afghanistan that was often more dangerous for journalists than for GIs.

So why have we lost the public's high regard? Does the public have our number or does the public misjudge us? And what should we do now?

The public loved us most in November, when flags rippled on the corners of TV screens and from on-camera lapels. Journalists were asking few tough questions regarding civilian bombing casualties and civil liberties, and the American military was rolling to a stunning victory in Afghanistan. Despite the tragedy of Sept. 11, we had a lot of good news to cover, and even pieces on the tragic aspects of the story seemed to forge a common sense of outrage and purpose. The more thorny elements tended to be put aside until a later day.

This spring and summer, that day came. The triumphant story ran its course, and the what-really-happened story began to be covered, with disquieting results. We started to get reports that there were significant civilian casualties, and serious questions began to be raised about the wisdom of an invasion of Iraq. Darkening the news atmosphere further were the stories of Enron Corp., Global Crossing, and the betrayal of shareholders. The market fell. The news from the Middle East had seldom been worse. These past six months have not been a happy time on the news pages.

So, has the public simply returned to its pre-9/11 attitude when the press returned to its normal adversarial role as the news itself turned bad? When the lapdog turned back into a watchdog?

No doubt that is a big part of the drop in our approval rating. But we would be letting ourselves off the hook too easily to believe that the problem lies entirely with the public's distaste for us whenever we simply do our job. There are some questions that we tend to ignore that we should, instead, take time to ponder.

Is wanting public approval pandering or is public approval something worth trying to win? What did the public see in us after 9/11 that is worth struggling to preserve? Were we simply more human and accessible, less confrontational and negative? Can we do our job well and still be human and accessible -- and not so confrontational and negative? Is being overtly American in our reporting wrong? What does it mean to be an American journalist, as opposed to being a journalist without a national perspective, such as at the BBC? Where is the line between flag waving and simply reacting as an American?

There are genuine assaults on the press now under way that make these questions especially urgent. The Bush administration is taking unprecedented steps to limit access to public records, and the Freedom of Information Act is in real jeopardy. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made many Pentagon officials afraid to be seen speaking to journalists, and lately the FBI has been conducting a scorched-earth search for the source of leaks on Capitol Hill.

Two recent best-selling books, Bias and Slander, have accused the media of everything except abducting children. Various interest groups have tried to intimidate news organizations into tailoring their reporting to satisfy a particular political perspective. Coverage of the Middle East, for instance, has made news organizations a target of both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups.

The point is that we need the public's support, now more than ever. We need for the public to understand that it is not unpatriotic to want government officials to leak information. That's how we -- and our readers -- find out about what Washington is really up to. We need the public to care about access to documents. We need them to believe we are acting on their behalf when we fight for such things. And we need the public to understand that while journalism is not often perfect, that doesn't mean that it's calculatedly slanted and biased.

With the problems that we face, we dare not simply shrug and say, "The public's attitude be damned." We need, instead, to spend some time figuring out what we can honorably do to nudge those polling results back up. The stakes for us, and for the public, have never been higher.

Source: Editor & Publisher Online

Where do I start?

How about this: "We need them to believe we are acting on their behalf when we fight for such things. And we need the public to understand that while journalism is not often perfect, that doesn't mean that it's calculatedly slanted and biased." Act on our behalf and maybe we will believe it. Don't get the cart before the horse. Duh! If journalists would see themselves as referees instead of players in the game of politics, they'd do much better at being balanced. Instead, they view themselves as the keepers of democracy, the holders of the truth, and the guides of our individual and collective conscience.

Most journalists can readily see that bias is "in the eye of the beholder." I will give them that to a point. Yet a majority of them cannot see that, equally true, news perspective is in the eye of the reporter. Why are we colored by our ideals and they are not? Are they saying they are super-human? It sounds like it. They lose credibility when they cannot admit that they too are human and make mistakes. (Other than the blanket "we are not perfect" which is supposed to cover every sin they commit without ever actually admitting wrong doing. The government needs watching. The people are biased. But the press gets a free ride--total freedom, total access, no accountability, no admission of political leanings or bias....just ask 'em. They're perfect.)

The press needs just as much supervision as the government does. The people of this country need just as much free access and openness from the press, to keep them honest, as they need from the government. No one gets a free ride or a constitutional blank check.

Here's a little analogy I came up with:

Ringwraiths: Ensnared by power, the media are losing credibility (a lesson from The Lord of the Rings)

With a diversity of intentions, our national media are losing their credibility. It isn't hard to see why. Power has frequently led men astray. Even with a desire to do good and a commitment to use strength only to help the weak, power can begin to wield a pull of its own. The dark side of power--control--easily ensnares the human heart when not carefully kept in check.

Wise men--the Gandalfs of our time--with an understanding of human nature, have always known this to be true. Unfortunately, as power increases, wisdom often decreases. Along with it goes restraint, balance, fairness, moderation, morality, humility, and--worst of all--freedom.

This brings me to the media. The power these corporate conglomerates hold over our political process is obvious. They set the debate. They decide what is and isn't news. They generously distribute credibility or criticism to whomever they choose--creating fame or assigning blame in the process. Perspective is theirs alone. Their precious.

What these media giants forget is easily discovered in our history books. The people rebel when power is oppressive. It is not difficult to recognize one-sided arguments and "news" presentations held captive to only one ideology. Credibility is quickly being lost by the media's unrelenting grip on their own power perches.

But there is hope. Listen to the people, Media Ringwraiths (read: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Kansas City Star, Time, Newsweek, etc..). Release your grip. Allow balanced and fair debate to take place on your television airwaves, in your newspaper and magazine pages, and on your radio programs. Consider all perspectives when framing news stories or identify your partisan ties. Make your commentary arguments with reasonable and honest debate, rather than with unfair criticism, gossip, and name-calling. Give the people of this country a chance by leveling the playing field. It is the right thing to do.

Toss your ring of power into the fires of Mount Doom before your credibility is un restorable.

We need, instead, to spend some time figuring out what we can honorably do to nudge those polling results back up.

Mr. Jones:

It is not really that difficult. People have been telling you what you need to do for a long time. You just don't want to hear it.

You saw how close the election was in 2000. Most elections are like that. What it means is that the population is roughly divided in half between those who lean left, and those who lean right.

This isn't true in your newsroom, is it? It isn't true in hardly any newsroom. Poll after poll taken of journalists show that journalists as a group are overhwelmingly Democratic in their politics.

Half of the population can see this in everything you write. We see it in the choice of stories you think are important, and the stories you ignore. We see it in the way you choose the "experts" who get quoted in your stories. We see it in the way you turn to certain left-leaning groups time after time to provide special-interest perspective.

It all seems quite normal to you, I'm sure. The groups and expert you choose are "mainstream." All journalists use them. Yes, they do. And half of the population sees the lot of you as a bunch of left-leaning propagandists for doing it.

When is the last time a major-newspaper journalist called the president of Concerned Women for America, instead of Kim Gandy of NOW, for the "women's" side of an issue? NOW is full of avowed Marxists, for God's sake; they don't even hide it. CWA has ten times the membership, yet it is ignored... because it is not of the political left. You do this on every issue, from the environment to foreign trade. All your experts, all your membership groups, all your "think tanks" and "research institutes" are of the Left. You hadn't noticed that? We do. We notice it every time you do it.

You know what you need? You need Newsroom Diversity. And never mind the racial or gender makeup; what you need is political diversity. So long as 90-plus per cent of working journalists belong to one political party, and color everything they write and do with the perspective associated with that political party, that half of the public which does not share your political belief system will continue to find you untrustworthy, biased, and worst of all, arrogant about it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.