One of the most persistent complaints about broadcast journalism–a complaint that comes from both left and right–is the practice on shows like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, etc. of asking questions of their guests, allowing those guests to answer, and then moving on to the next question. The hosts rarely challenge even the most obvious fabrications, exaggerations and spin. They rarely follow up a question with another, deeper one.
These exercises do little more than allow politicians to pontificate. They reiterate their talking points, confident that they will not be called out. Jay Rosen has a better idea:
NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen tweeted an idea about improving the Sunday morning talk shows. He says the programs, rather than letting politicians get away with distortions, should offer an online fact check each week of exaggerations and lies. For the guests, says Rosen, the format beckons them to evade, deny, elide, demagogue and confuse, but then they pay for it later if they give into temptation and make that choice.
Something along these lines would certainly do wonders for the credibility of our increasingly feckless pundits.
The charge that government wastes money (or “throws money at problems) is a favorite accusation of politicians of all persuasions. Certainly, lawmakers should refuse to fund activities that have been shown not to work. But as Steve Benen points out, the definition of waste generally owes more to ideology than evidence.
The pitfalls of our new social media environments are widely discussed, if not quite as widely understood. A recent personal experience brought that point home to me rather vividly.
A couple of days ago, I posted an angry comment to Facebook about Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, and their apparent willingness to kill health insurance reform. In Lieberman’s case, it’s hard to know what motivates him. Nelson, as I said much less elegantly in my comment, appeared quite willing to trade the lives of the thousands of people who die every year because they don’t have health insurance for assurances that insurance wouldn’t pay for abortions. I suggested there was a special place in hell for people who would trade away the lives of living, breathing Americans who desperately need access to medical care in order to save an indeterminate number of fetuses.
Admittedly, the language of my comment was not an example of the civility I so often advocate, and criticism on that basis would have been entirely fair.
Instead, a Facebook “friend” (since “unfriended”) blogged that I had posted a “hate-filled” diatribe about pro-life advocates. That blog post–the accuracy of which could not be verified by anyone not on my Friends list, even if someone were inclined to do so–has subsequently made its way to other venues, morphing along the way into an accusation that I had consigned all anti-choice people to hell.
Was my original comment uncivil? Yes. Should I have counted to ten before posting it? Yes. Should I have framed my criticism in a more constructive fashion? Yes. Did I suggest that all anti-choice advocates would rot in hell? Absolutely not.
The moral of this story (aside from the obvious one that I should practice what I preach!) is that people who are ideologically driven will hear what they think you really mean, rather than what you really say, and social networking sites that limit the ability of fair-minded folks to do some independent fact-checking are just one more reason our public divisions continue to grow.
You are probably surprised to hear from me since, being Jewish, I haven’t written before. But things are really getting dicey here in the good old U.S. of A., and I was wondering if I might ask for one teeny-weeny gift this year.
I’d like some sanity, if you have any on hand. (I know it’s been getting harder to find.)
I wouldn’t bother you if we were just dealing with the usual hypocrisy. You know, congressmen screaming about how we need to keep the government from getting between you and your doctor while simultaneously voting to get between a pregnant woman and her doctor. Or those Republican Senators who screamed bloody murder during the Bush Administration about how the filibuster is wrong and undemocratic (small d), and who are now filibustering everything in sight, or the Democratic (big D) Senators who were doing the filibustering then and are screaming bloody murder about it now.
We’re used to that sort of thing.
What’s got me worried is the “Nero fiddling while Rome burns” behavior. It isn’t just politicians, either. As you know, Santa, America is facing big problems. The cost of medical care is threatening to bankrupt the country. We are fighting two unpopular wars, at least one of which was unnecessary. The economy is in shambles. So our media fixates on Tiger Woods’ infidelity and Sarah Palin’s book tour. Really? And don’t get me started about the deranged “birthers” who insist that President Obama is a Muslim-communist-Nazi socialist.
Speaking of fiddling and burning, despite overwhelming scientific consensus that the world faces calamity if we don’t do something about global climate change, we have people—including several in congress—sticking their fingers in their ears and going “la la la—I can’t and won’t hear you!”
But what really got me, Santa, was reaction to a bill to regulate Wall Street. As you know, big bank shenanigans made possible by lax regulation were a major cause of the recession. (I know it has affected you and the elves, too; families have less money so you’ll have fewer toys to deliver.) Opponents of this bill are calling it “socialism.”
Santa, I understand arguing that a particular regulation is good or bad, but to argue that making banks play by some rules amounts to a “government takeover” is crazy; it’s like saying that giving an umpire authority to call outs is “socializing” baseball.
It’s paranoid.
I know it isn’t new. Back in 1964, Richard Hofstader wrote “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” and gave examples of various lunacies through American history. (Remember when Robert Welch insisted that President Eisenhower was ‘a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy’?) When the problems we face seem enormous and their solutions impossibly complex, people do tend to “leave the reservation” as the saying goes. We’ve lived through the anti-Masons and the Nativists and the Klan. We’ll probably survive the current paranoia.
But just in case, Santa—can you bring us some sanity?
Jim Lehrer recently announced a change of name and some changes of format to what was previously the McNeill Lehrer report. As one blogger who reported on the changes noted, Lehrer has consistently approached the news with a certain seriousness and depth that is virtually non-existent on television anymore.
Last week in a piece about the show’s latest changes (new name, revamped website, etc.), Lehrer outlined his “guidelines… of what I like to call MacNeil/Lehrer journalism.” If everyone followed these rules, we might all breathe sighs of relief. Here they are:
Do nothing I cannot defend.
Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am.
Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
Assume personal lives are a private matter, until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes, except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
I am not in the entertainment business.
As important as all of these are, I REALLY like the last one.
