I really appreciate you taking the time to respond consciously and courteously, Robert! The internet needs more people like you.
I want to start by saying I have never said, and will never say, that every aspect of the journalism industry is perfect. There are always improvements to be made, and I am more than happy to address problems where they exist — perhaps I’ll write a piece about that soon. The overall point I was trying to make was that distrust in the media is rampant, and I don’t believe that distrust is as justified as some would make it out to be.
You say that the “news became a product that was more agenda driven.” That greatly depends on what organization you’re talking about, which I alluded to in my piece. Yes, some sources are clearly agenda-driven. Others are not. That’s why, as I said, it’s important to be aware of the different types of sources that exist and understand what you’re consuming.
Most television news outlets have been bought out by corporate conglomerates, and I would agree that has had a negative impact on how many newsrooms are run (I’ll address that when I touch on the Brian Williams issue in a moment.) That said, there aren’t many cases in which ownership affects the news that is actually reported or the “agenda” of reporters. To start, most news organizations are owned by wealthy conservatives, which completely flies in the face of the “liberal media” trope. Beyond television news, print publications and news radio are still by-and-large the source for all other news outlets. They are the ones doing the fact-checking and digging into investigative reporting. Yes, many of their salaries are paid for by advertisers, but advertisers don’t dictate the news.
You mentioned several issues regarding journalistic integrity that are absolutely worth pointing to, but deserve some clarification. First, you would not know about any of those instances had they not been caught, reported, and corrected by journalists. I can’t think of a single instance where a legitimate case in misreporting has not been swiftly dealt with, and accuracy is still the most important hallmark of every working journalist. It is also worthy of note that each issue you mentioned had clear consequences for the journalists and organizations involved:
- It was NBC’s Dateline that aired the staging of a fiery test crash to address exploding gas tanks. They were trying to demonstrate what the exploding gas tank would look like during a car crash, but did not clarify that their demonstration was staged. The staging itself was not unethical, the lack of a disclaimer was. GM sued NBC for defamation, and NBC clarified what they had done and apologized.
- After the Bush military records incident, CBS fired Mary Maples (who originally obtained the documents) and demanded the resignations of 60 Minutes’ executive producer, senior broadcast producer, and senior vice president. Dan Rather retired, stepping down a year earlier than he had planned. CBS acknowledged their mistake and publicly apologized.
- Brian Williams was the reporter who claimed his helicopter had been hit — he was involved in several other incidents of contradictory reporting. He got away with this for a time because NBC had been bought by Comcast; they re-organized the news department and put Williams in charge of everything. He held all the power over jobs, stories, and facts, which is not how any newsroom should operate, and which NBC has worked to rectify since the controversy with Williams. He was suspended without pay for 6 months, eventually fired from his anchorship, and given a job at MSNBC in a time slot few people watch, which is a significant demotion for him.
I am not familiar with your accusation against Ed Bradley, nor could I find any information about it online. 60 Minutes is frequently accused of “selective editing,” but given that most of their reports involve weeks of reporting and interviews, editing that footage to an 18 minute segment is a necessary part of their story format. You might note that the only people who get upset about their editing style are those who receive negative coverage — one could debate whose fault that really is.
The issue of sexual harassment allegations is one that touches every industry, not just journalism, so I don’t want to delve too deeply into that. I can only say that the same abuse of power that caused Brian Williams to misrepresent facts is what causes people think they can manipulate and abuse people sexually.
Something you mentioned about the news industry culture stuck out to me: it seems *to the consumer* to include a huge inflated ego, blatant agenda, and outright misinformation. Just because it appears that way to the consumer doesn’t mean that’s what’s actually going on, and one should be conscious of why that perception is so prominent. I don’t think it’s because there is an actual rampage of “fake news” — it’s because people are being told there is a rampage of fake news.
Addressing your second point: if, as you say, the ultimate function of the news is to keep people accurately informed of events, then yes, I can absolutely say the industry currently fulfills that function. I don’t think your comparison regarding technology really works within the framework — betterment of technology leads to betterment of the product and to a more user-friendly product. People can be accurately informed of news anywhere at any time. They have access to every news outlet at all hours of the day. Fact-checking is instantaneous, and cross-referencing multiple sources can happen at your fingertips.
None of this negates the responsibility of the consumer to understand the product. Using your car analogy, you wouldn’t just buy the first car off the lot because the salesman told you it was the best. You would look into several models, go to several dealerships, test-drive a few, and find the right one from there. If, as you say, the average American on spends 24 minutes a day looking at news, how can the consumer expect to be well-informed? It’s no wonder they don’t feel the news is giving them enough information — they are choosing to not take in enough information.
The reason why I suggested the consumer go to a class to understand “the product” would apply to any industry, and I don’t think that represents failure of the product, but rather a lack of interest from the consumer. I don’t know much about engineering, but if I wanted to understand how engineers do their jobs, I would either discuss it with an engineer or take a class on engineering. What I wouldn’t do is express disdain toward engineers, scream about them in the public square, or question the integrity of the entire engineering field. As someone who isn’t an expert on the subject, I have no authority to say such things, and nor do people who have no idea what goes into doing the job of a journalist.
I am glad you are hard on the news profession — trust me, people who make up the news profession are equally hard on themselves. I consider it a priority to call out problems within the industry where they exist, but I will never believe those problems warrant being called “the enemy of the people” by the President. I hope you don’t think that either.
