Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Media Standards?
Tigerhawk has graciously afforded me the opportunity to vent on his property, and I've taken him up on it. I hope I don't soil the nicely tended lawn. Thanks TH for the megaphone...
It cannot be a coincidence that the traditional US media has, in the last twelve months, authored some of the more spectacular mistakes in its history. Newsweek's WaterFlush, CBS's RatherGate and CNN's Eason Jordan Davos Debacle not only reflected immense anti-war, anti-military bias, they were also just remarkably incompetent journalism. And this incompetence, in an age of immediate and global reach, can get people hurt or killed.
In many respects, individual opinion (or bias) stirs passion, and passion intelligently and honestly deployed can do wondrous things.
But then, let's recall this:
Which emerged from this (abstract from NYT website):
Political bias alone cannot explain the reprehensible editorial judgment applied by Eason Jordan in this instance or in Davos, or by Dan Rather and his staff, or Michael Isikoff and his editors. In all but the most fraudulent cases, bias merely tends to fuel choice of and hunger for a story, rather than factual content. That's why the traditional media has done such a poor job covering the UNSCAM investigation, leaving it to dogged bloggers like Roger Simon, or the Swift Boat Veterans. Bias clearly led them away from those important stories which their viewership ultimately demanded.
Nor is it merely incompetence, though incompetence (perhaps spurred by a perception of urgency) plays an important part. While journalists tend to foster the view that they are professionals, they are not uniformly trained and schooled as, say, lawyers or doctors have been. Some are excellent. Many (most?) are quacks. And it has become evident that their employers do not rigorously train journalists, or aggressively weed our poor performers. What, after all, defines a poor performer?
It is an absence of clearly articulated and applied, generally accepted standards which is eroding trust and interest in traditional broadcast and print media. Americans fervently believe in tolerance and a free exchange of ideas; many are willing to fight and die for those and other ideals. But must those same Americans rescue Eason Jordan if he's trapped in Fallujah when he has conspired with Saddam to defraud CNN viewers so that he can maintain preferential access? Shouldn't CNN simply close its Baghdad office? Is Ted Turner a citizen of the world, or of this country? Glenn Reynolds expertly covers this topic here.
Many editors and journalists will scream "censorship". But the traditional broadcast and print media is in crisis, and it requires a significant dose of regulation to restore trust. It can either come from within, with the development of stringent and transparent reporting and editorial standards, with enforcement mechanisms which penalize non-adherents, or it will come from outside. And there needs to be a serious and public debate on those standards so that reporters and editors understand clearly what they are meant to do for the "public they serve." Corporations are variously overseen by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and, as Eliot Spitzer has made clear, the State's Attorney. The Securities Industry is self regulated by the Securities Industry Association and also answers to the SEC and State's Attorney. Physicians and Lawyers similarly have regulatory bodies to whom they must answer, both their own and third parties. And then of course there is recourse to malpractice litigation. How about publishers, editors and reporters? When was the last time a libel suit scared anybody?
The coincidence driving these truly large and absurd errors in reporting happens to be the confluence of a presidency and a war which is unpopular with the traditional media. We have suffered both of these before. However, the current unprecedented decline of editorial and journalistic excellence reflects atrocious and often reprehensible standards inconsistent with the traditional American notion of free expression. In this era of instant global reach, the issue of uniform standards and ethics must be addressed.
It cannot be a coincidence that the traditional US media has, in the last twelve months, authored some of the more spectacular mistakes in its history. Newsweek's WaterFlush, CBS's RatherGate and CNN's Eason Jordan Davos Debacle not only reflected immense anti-war, anti-military bias, they were also just remarkably incompetent journalism. And this incompetence, in an age of immediate and global reach, can get people hurt or killed.
In many respects, individual opinion (or bias) stirs passion, and passion intelligently and honestly deployed can do wondrous things.
But then, let's recall this:
Which emerged from this (abstract from NYT website):
Op-Ed article by Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, says now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, world can expect to hear many gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about decades of torment; says he has tales as well, learned during 13 trips he made to Baghdad over last 12 years to lobby government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders; says he saw and heard awful things that he could not report because doing so would have jeopardized lives of Iraqis, particularly those on CNN's Baghdad staff; says secret police terrorized all Iraqis working for international press services; says some vanished forever, others disppeared and then surfaced later with tales of being tortured; says one of CNN's Iraqi cameramen was abducted, beaten and horribly tortured; says he is still haunted by story of woman captured by secret police after speaking with CNN on phone; says plastic bag containing her body parts was left on doorstep of her family's home.
Political bias alone cannot explain the reprehensible editorial judgment applied by Eason Jordan in this instance or in Davos, or by Dan Rather and his staff, or Michael Isikoff and his editors. In all but the most fraudulent cases, bias merely tends to fuel choice of and hunger for a story, rather than factual content. That's why the traditional media has done such a poor job covering the UNSCAM investigation, leaving it to dogged bloggers like Roger Simon, or the Swift Boat Veterans. Bias clearly led them away from those important stories which their viewership ultimately demanded.
Nor is it merely incompetence, though incompetence (perhaps spurred by a perception of urgency) plays an important part. While journalists tend to foster the view that they are professionals, they are not uniformly trained and schooled as, say, lawyers or doctors have been. Some are excellent. Many (most?) are quacks. And it has become evident that their employers do not rigorously train journalists, or aggressively weed our poor performers. What, after all, defines a poor performer?
It is an absence of clearly articulated and applied, generally accepted standards which is eroding trust and interest in traditional broadcast and print media. Americans fervently believe in tolerance and a free exchange of ideas; many are willing to fight and die for those and other ideals. But must those same Americans rescue Eason Jordan if he's trapped in Fallujah when he has conspired with Saddam to defraud CNN viewers so that he can maintain preferential access? Shouldn't CNN simply close its Baghdad office? Is Ted Turner a citizen of the world, or of this country? Glenn Reynolds expertly covers this topic here.
Many editors and journalists will scream "censorship". But the traditional broadcast and print media is in crisis, and it requires a significant dose of regulation to restore trust. It can either come from within, with the development of stringent and transparent reporting and editorial standards, with enforcement mechanisms which penalize non-adherents, or it will come from outside. And there needs to be a serious and public debate on those standards so that reporters and editors understand clearly what they are meant to do for the "public they serve." Corporations are variously overseen by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and, as Eliot Spitzer has made clear, the State's Attorney. The Securities Industry is self regulated by the Securities Industry Association and also answers to the SEC and State's Attorney. Physicians and Lawyers similarly have regulatory bodies to whom they must answer, both their own and third parties. And then of course there is recourse to malpractice litigation. How about publishers, editors and reporters? When was the last time a libel suit scared anybody?
The coincidence driving these truly large and absurd errors in reporting happens to be the confluence of a presidency and a war which is unpopular with the traditional media. We have suffered both of these before. However, the current unprecedented decline of editorial and journalistic excellence reflects atrocious and often reprehensible standards inconsistent with the traditional American notion of free expression. In this era of instant global reach, the issue of uniform standards and ethics must be addressed.
2 Comments:
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Tue May 17, 02:23:00 PM:
Welcome aboard Cardinalpark! Great inaugural post. I've been enjoying your stuff in the comments for some time now, and am glad to see you finally elevated to the main event! (Waiting to see how long it takes your buddy Screwie to come at you).
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue May 17, 04:18:00 PM:
Thanks for the greeting. Glad to be in the game...and I enjoyed your SS post...
