If the world of politics is now so dominated by spin and media management that ‘reality’ is whatever you choose it to be, what’s the proper role of journalism?

It’s to find the truth and report it, right? Journalists are employed to serve their readers and viewers by cutting through hype, digging out red herrings, challenging misleading statements and exposing what’s really going on. You would think so, wouldn’t you?

But it turns out it’s a little more complicated than that. So complicated in fact that one of the world’s most respected and established media outlets – The New York Times no less – has seen fit to ask its readers whether its journalists should be “truth vigilantes”.

Arthur Brisbane, who’s employed as the NYT’s ‘public editor’ (a role created to represent the readers in the news gathering process),  provoked a controversy when he wondered out loud whether journalists should call politicians out on outright falsehoods.

Brisbane used as an example recent statements by Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney that President Obama had made speeches “apologising for America” when the record showed he had done no such thing. The NYT public editor wondered whether the paper should, in addition to its separate fact-checking, challenge Romney’s claim within the copy.

The reaction to Brisbane’s blog post boiled down to ‘why the hell is the New York Times asking its readers whether they want the truth? Isn’t that what you guys are there for?’ Media guru Jay Rosen seized on the column as further proof of his hypothesis that the mainstream media is failing its readers by forsaking the pursuit of truth and employing fake objectivity and a kind of “view from nowhere”.

This blog has been saying something similar now for some time. But unlike Rosen, I don’t blame the journalists. There seems little doubt, that with honourable exceptions, most working journalists these days spend the vast majority of their time on the hamster wheel,  and that reflects the lousy economics of the trade now – fewer people being asked to do more and more by an industry in terminal decline. Skills and institutional knowledge are being lost to journalism as people quit the craft, disillusioned with low pay, poor conditions, a lack of a career path and a realisation that the people who employ them don’t care much about the truth anyway.

Newsrooms are now populated by desk journalists, cutting and pasting from press releases to meet constant deadlines and online obligations. Their harried news editors and sub-editors – like Sisyphus  – are given the immensely thrilling job of rolling the boulder up the hill everyday, only to see it roll back down again and crush them. (Do I sound bitter? Sorry. Shell shock. Haven’t taken my pills today.)

So, what we were talking about? The Truth? Yeah right. Young journalists on $60K a year and working 60-hour weeks are being asked to pump out 3-4 stories each day to fill the Great White Spaces between the ads, while providing updates for the web and occasionally a multi-media piece. For these kids, there is barely enough time to run the spell check, never mind challenging, say, Joe Hockey’s lie that government debt is “exploding” and “putting upward pressure on interest rates”. And unlike US newsrooms, there has never been any culture of fact-checking in Australian journalism. Subs are now consigned to cutting the story to fit and are actively discouraged from checking the copy beyond the most cursory grammatical/spell check.

So my take on the Truth deficit thing in media is to avoid blaming everyday working journalists (By the way, I’m not talking about highly paid columnists here, some of whom are hired as professional trolls). The vanilla reporters are stuck in the Dark Satanic news mills, working in bad light under strict instructions and pumping out thinner and thinner yarn. If you want a culprit, you need to look past those drones to the media owners, who under intense economic pressure have decided that what they are selling is not so much the Truth, but a view of the world that confirms the received prejudices of their own readership/viewership (prejudices, BTW, that are formed by reading the tosh served up as news).

As to this notion of Truth, it’s worth asking “whose truth?” In an academic paper released in 2008 (Gentzkow and Shapiro, ‘Competition and Truth in the Market for News’), two researchers from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business put forward the proposition that consumers will tend to favour those news outlets whose in-built bias best reflects their own. Yes, there is a disincentive for media organisations to peddle outright falsehoods. But between the two extremes of damned lies and the virginal truth, there is an awfully great expanse of grey territory.

“Suppose that consumers consciously trade off accuracy of a news source against a preference for information that is likely to confirm their beliefs,” Gentzkow and Shapiro write. “They want to learn the truth, but will choose a less accurate source or one that avoids reporting certain kinds of facts in order to avoid having their personal beliefs challenged. Adding competitors in this kind of world can sometimes exacerbate bias because it allows consumers to self-segregate more effectively and to avoid hearing information that might contradict their priors.”

This the unspoken secret in journalism – the realisation that the public is not really that interested in the unvarnished truth.  Commercial media owners have twigged to this and now are in the business of spinning “facts” (rather factoids) that use “the news” as a platform for presenting a world view in keeping with the one they have educated their readers to believe in. Hence The Daily Telegraph’s continued commercial success in printing outright falsehoods (remember Wayne Swan’s “congestion tax”?).

Traditional journalists (ones who saw their readers as their first responsibility and not their employer’s bottom line) might have been expected to have challenged this practice. Alas, an entire generation of journos has now been schooled that their job is to serve up the view of the world that their readership wants and which suits the commercial imperatives of the organisations that employ them. And if they allow an outright lie from a public figure to be reported unchallenged, their defence can be “well, HE said it!”

You see it’s no longer about Getting to The Truth. Like advertising, journalism now is mostly about constructing a version of the truth that suits a chosen market. It’s about making an impact and attracting eyeballs and building a brand. And the greatest shame of it all is that a gullible public buys it. They can’t handle the truth.


16 Comments

Anonymous · January 16, 2012 at 6:48 AM

A searingly accurate piece, alas.

Anonymous · January 16, 2012 at 7:10 AM

That's pretty cynical. Of course it is also largely true. But there ARE intelligent readers who DO want the truth. OTOH most of them don't waste their money on newspapers.

The problem is that the global media moguls refuse to discuss unpalatable truths because they are part of the top 0.1% and they are protecting their diversified class interests.

Imagine if a top US paper like NYT or WaPo decided to run a campaign demanding a new investigation of 9/11, highlighting all the failures of the politicized 9/11 Commission. The results would surely be as explosive as The Guardian's revelations about Murdoch phone hacking.

Or what if an Australian paper ran a campaign to reveal the whole story of why we went to war in Iraq? Or how about a European paper exposing tax havens used by politicians? Not just writing a story but hammering the issue day after day after day.

These are not stories that media magnates see fit to print. They would rather watch their profits dwindle and newspapers disappear.

But people would buy a newspaper that did that. They would rush to get their hands on a copy. Even on the Net, clicks and advertising rates would boom.

Most importantly, a paper that did run such a campaign would get CREDIBILITY. And that's the media's biggest problem. We don't believe what they tell us.

Even The Guardian is an Establishment tool that has a clear bias against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. They edited cables to protect UK corporations, and relentlessly slandered Julian's character. But they are doing better than most competitors because they have credibility on other issues.

It's easy to be cynical. But intelligent members of the public are crying out for the truth. If anyone can provide it, they stand to profit handsomely. Perhaps not financially, in the short term, but that short term could be very short indeed. The world is ripe for change.

pk · January 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

This blog has been in fine form lately.
I agree with you that journos usually aren't to blame, except those who actively side with political/corporate figures.

Jay Rosen is usually right but a little too dogmatic. Newspaper editors can't say anything without it being taken as evidence of their utter incompetence and hatred of the public. Things will change, no doubt, but a little patience is in order.

Anonymous · January 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

The ABC's Charter requires it to be above all this. Absence of commercial imperative. Its insistence on quality and independence. Unbiased. Yet John Howard's ABC is one of the worst offenders, the institutionalisation of much that is wrong with news reporting in this country. For the sake of the country, the government should go through the ABC with lye and a wire brush.

Quipper · January 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Spot on, Mr D

Anonymous · January 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

I can handle the truth but how does the average reader know what they are reading really is true?

Sue · January 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I so hope you're right, Anonymous. My more cynical side says there's not enough people who are willing to care enough to want to know the truth. My idealist side says that's bosh, and everyone's panting for it.

It's definitely time for a new newspaper. Let's start a co-op 🙂

Anonymous · January 17, 2012 at 8:28 AM

” ….. what's the proper role of journalism?
It's to find the truth and report it, right? Journalists are employed to serve their readers and viewers by cutting through hype, digging out red herrings, challenging misleading statements and exposing what's really going on. You would think so, wouldn't you?”

No.
I wouldn't.

The proper role of journalism, as defined by their employers and owners [remember: who pays the piper calls the tune], is to deliver eyeballs and ears to the mass medium [tv/radio/print/whatever] so that advertisers, and the mass medium, can maximise profits.

Thats it essentially [as Anonymous #2 suggests].
Has been for many decades, even generations.

Why pretend otherwise?

fred

Notus · January 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

In truth, there is no such thing as “the truth”.
Just layers and layers of bullshit.
I can handle that.

730reportland · January 18, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Propagandists are employed to serve their masters and advertisers by creating enough hype, digging up red herrings, creating misleading statements and hiding what`s really going on.
blogs.very.limited.news/propaganda

And the greatest shame of it all is that a gullible public buys it?
A lot of folks on WordPress and Blogger don`t seem to.

They can`t handle the truth?
Well the way things are going Mr-D, we won`t be tested on that by the embedded media any time soon.

Anonymous Jan 15, 2012 11:10 PM
RE, what if … Iraq war? I agree with you, if done in 2002. Would have given high credibility to a brave newsroom and staff. Way too late now. Sadly, the embedded media laid down back in 2002 and most likely won`t be getting up again in our lifetime, if ever.
http://boltreportland.blogspot.com/2011/12/generation-of-dopes.html

Alphonse · January 20, 2012 at 3:01 AM

An exacerbating factor not addressed is the migration of informed truth-seeking to the web. With unerring precision and careful counting of beans, our media are desperately targeting the prejudices and exploiting the ignorance of their dwindling remnant markets.

Andrew Elder · January 20, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The way that news is structured reflects media traditions rather than market niches.

Say the Health Minister announces that there'll be more money for health. This will be reported by a bevy of politics reporters with a lot of irrelevant crap attached to it (is this good for X? Did Y get rolled? etc). Days, weeks later, the overworked and under-resourced health reporter will get around to digesting the announcement and all the data behind it. He/She will cross-check the information against their sources, and produce a nuanced story which says this is good, that's rubbish, these things need work, and here's how the announcement fits into the health system and where it's going.

That latter bit is where the news value is, not that “first with the latest” stuff. Politicians ought not be heard from unless their statements and actions are cross-checked against what's happening on the ground (well beyond the spin-controlled place where the minister made their announcement).

Wherever journos find themselves in an environment up against walls of spinners, they should surely beat a tactical retreat rather than pretend the game's not up and just splice press releases together, thinking they're adding value.

All this explains why it's too easy for readers to blame themselves. It's like fashion: designers don't like designing for women above size 6, so therefore anyone larger than size 6 must be unqualified to speak about fashion, and have a commitment to fatness and ugly unfashionable clothing. Fuck off!

Working journalists are assigned to a beat/ role/ bailiwick/ thing and they produce reports within the parameters set. The parameters are all wrong. When working journos become editors they can't shift the parameters and so the mistakes compound themselves.

Worse, when journos become managers they still think they're journos. It was risible for John Hartigan to think of himself as a journalist long after he became a corporate executive (was he ever much chop as a journo anyway?). Imagine how absurd and patronising it would be to refer to Gail Kelly as “a bank teller” (even though she was one earlier in her career, and she runs an organisation which employs bank tellers, this does not mean she is one), and his conceit by editors should be clearer than it is.

It isn't news that there's an announcement. It's news how new information fits with what's already known. If you want to talk about reinforcing prejudices, that's a discussion that simply isn't valid in the current news environment. Editors assume the crude tools to slant a story that way or this aren't obvious to passive consumers – they are obvious and consumers are no longer passive. That's why this idea that “consumers force us to publish/broadcast junk”, i.e. the customer is always wrong, is such bullshit.

Cultural Gal · January 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM

What journalists are asked to produce these days is a complicated balancing act between the expectations of their readers and the commercial imperatives of the owner. So the Herald Sun is sometimes caught between pretending to represent the battler, the little guy etc, and yet needing to union bash and so on. Fairfax newspapers are increasingly torn between the wishes of their commercial stakeholders and the demands of their small 'l' liberal readers, and I think the latter's needs are coming second.

But the troll element as you've acknowledged is another matter altogether. Andrew Bolt, for example, has the power not just to pander to the prejudices of his readers but to move them to more extreme positions. My DLP dad, a former secondary school principal, has been reading Bolt and Murdoch papers for years and his views have become sillier and more extreme over time (Sorry, Dad!). For example, he completely denies the validity of scientific findings in regard to climate change. Newspapers still have a huge ability to shape public opinion.

Jude · January 22, 2012 at 5:38 AM

How fucking depressing. Capitalism is past its use-by date. We need to start again, but what?

Anonymous · January 24, 2012 at 2:03 AM

What is truth? The job of the journo is not to go after “the truth”, but rather to try to objectively describe all the different perspectives. It is up to the reader to then make up their mind about what they with to believe the truth is. Most issues are complex, multifacted with no absolute answers. Let's get back to democracy: give the public the right to decide for themselves.

newsgirl · January 30, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I've worked for quite a few media organisations and I can only remember one time where I was instructed to produce a piece that was not only “not news” but a wholly constructed story that had no relationship with reality, let along truth.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *