Yesterday, I said (third item): “I think journalistic ‘balance’ is illusory under the best of circumstances.” I need to explain that further. But it’s a big topic so I’ll do it in two parts. In this part, I explain why “balance” is illusory by highlighting one specific area, then in part two I’ll talk about the wider implications.
“Balance” is illusory because it’s based on another flawed newsmedia tenet, “objectivity”. I believe that humans are incapable of true objectivity because we all have biases and prejudices. The best any journalist can hope for is to acknowledge their biases and work extra hard to be fair. Calling news stories “objective” doesn’t make it so—just look at Fox Noise.
The bigger problem is that “balance” assumes equivalence for all issues, and that’s just nonsense. Yesterday I used the example of newsmedia asking the KKK to comment about civil rights for African Americans—no real journalist would ever contemplate doing anything so stupid because they know there’s no equivalence between civil rights for African Americans and white supremacy.
The newsmedia, however, still feels it must bring in far-right religious figures to provide “balance” in discussions of GLBT civil rights measures, thereby implying equivalence where none exists. Marriage equality is the current example, but they do this with all GLBT issues, like anti-discrimination laws. This implies that human rights for GLBT people are something that fundamentalist religious people have a right to veto, or to urge others to stop, yet supporters of GLBT human rights would never be offered the chance to comment on suppression of rights for fundamentalists. Religious belief and secular matters are separate in one direction only, apparently.
So, because religious conservatives don’t like GLBT people, and don’t want them to have any social or legal recognition, the newsmedia feel that they’re the ones who can “balance” discussion of the GLBT struggle for equality. This is the lazy way out, taken because secular opponents are hard to find: Most of the public opponents who claim to be secular are, in fact, rightwing religionists who are trying to hide the fact. Yet, it’s possible to oppose civil rights for GLBT people, or marriage equality, without resorting to particular religious belief. Personally, I think that any such arguments would be every bit as weak, but at least their foundation wouldn't require belief in a deity or adherence to the doctrine of a subset of believers in that deity.
But I think the problem is bigger than mere naïve journalistic ethics: The newsmedia in general are deathly afraid of offending anyone, but at the same time they crave controversy—vicious fights even—because it sells papers and gets ratings (“if it bleeds, it leads”). Having a calm, rational discussion on GLBT issues, one that doesn’t assume religious belief has equivalence with purely secular matters, may be enlightening, but it won’t bring consumers’ eyes and ears as quickly as an argument will.
It’s hard enough to keep the newsmedia accurate, in this age of shrinking newsroom resources. When the newsmedia embrace an inherently anti-GLBT mindset by assuming equivalence between the secular and the religious—and then put it in a wrapper of “balance” with a ribbon of “objectivity”— what hope can we have for sane public discourse?
3 comments:
The concept of objectivity in journalism isn't well understood by most people. Like scientists using the scientific method, it's not the person - journalist - that's objective. It's the method. Professional journalists attempt to verify facts and find support or rebuttal for the opinions of the sources they quote.
That being said, freedom of the press is a right shared by every American, whether they are a professionally trained journalist or not. The untrained journalist - and some trained journalists - don't follow the objective method and so deserve critique, but the concept is sound if practiced well.
mousepicnic.blogspot.com
I happen to think that journalists, real journalists can create an objective process. Someone comes out and says the earth is flat doesn't mean that fact gets reported.
The real problem is that real journalistic standards have been altered. I saw a tease for ABC's Good Morning America, where Jon (of Jon & Kate plus 8) is giving his side of the story. WHO THE F*&@ CARES? Where is the newsworthiness of that?!
Russ: Thank you for your comment. I actually wrote a long response—then, apparently, clicked something wrong and lost it. Or maybe I'll just blame Blogger—yeah, I like that idea better.
Anyway, the important part of it was that I think you make an important point about how objectivity works (and thank you for not saying the easy, and equally true, thing, that it "isn't well understood by" non-journalists).
However, I would argue that the comparison with science is only partly true: While both professions attempt to discover and verify fact, at least part of the support for journalists comes from the comments/opinions/observations of people, while scientists turn to other objective facts for support.
Be that as it may, I deeply respect the profession and the people who do it. I just want them to be even better.
Roger: I agree with you that journalists can create an objective process. However, I disagree that "Someone comes out and says the earth is flat doesn't mean that fact gets reported." I believe it does, as I discuss in part 2.
As for "Good Morning America", I know that some would argue that no one should expect "real news" from GMA, but that's silly (and a bit elitist). The real problem, I think, is the creep of "info-tainment" and "celebri-news" in place of real news. I've read that there have been many arguments in newsrooms over this, but they're ones that those real journalists often lose.
Post a Comment