The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Modern Journalism

Most journalism students today go into journalism to "change the world". However, it is not the job or responsibility of a journalist to change the world. Their job is to uncover the facts, consult with experts on all sides to determine the veracity of the facts, and then report the facts to the public. If you wish to change the world you should become a politician, or become a commentator, or devote yourself to charitable efforts, or go into the Arts or Sciences, or - God Forbid - start a business that has a positive impact on society.

It is also the job of a journalist to seek out all sides of an issue and report their findings in a dispassionate manner. They need to be careful with their adjectives, modifiers, and qualifiers when reporting the facts that they have uncovered. Reasoned intelligence should be the basis of writing a story, and not just he said, she said, statements. For this reason, I would suggest that all journalism students should take an intensive course in Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, and Cognitive Biases. It is amazing how using formal and informal logic and logical fallacies and cognitive biases can lead you to the truth of a matter. It would also be helpful if journalism students had a course in Philosophy, Micro and Macro Economics, Business 101, General Science and Technology, and History (the USA and World). Indeed, I would recommend that journalism students spend their first year of college NOT studying journalism but immerse themselves in these other areas of studies.

Bias in the media exists - but it has always existed and will continue to exist in the future. In America's past, there have been British vs. Colonialist, Constitution vs. Anti-Constitution, Federalism vs. States Rights, Agrarian vs Industrialist, Abolitionist vs. Anti-Abolitionist, North vs. South, Eastern Interests vs. Western Interests, Republican vs. Democrat, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Pro-War vs. Anti-War, etc., etc. etc. reporting in journalism. You could always find journalism support of one thing, and journalism in support of the opposite thing. Both sides have had an equal opportunity to espouse their views in journalism. This is how it should be for the American people to hear both sides of an issue and make up their minds where they stand on an issue. Journalism of this type also helps with the checks and balances of our political system, as it provides an outlet for all sides to express their views on an issue so that a consensus can be reached. This is one of the major reasons the Founding Fathers made the first amendment the first amendment. It states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But something began to happen in the late 20th century and continues today. The balance of journalism shifted in that most of the media began to be biased in one direction on many of the issues. There were fewer and fewer media outlets that were reporting the conservative positions, while a majority of media outlets were reporting the liberal positions. The conservative positions began to get less representation in the journalist ranks, and less media attention and coverage of their positions. Indeed, the conservative positions began to be covered in a negative light by the biased media. As a result, modern journalism is dying from these biases, and it is being killed by the journalist themselves.

Thus, today you can expect that if you are not in support of the media biased position the media will be hostile to your views and opinions. And what is even worse is that most of the media do not even recognize this bias. They believe that their biased position is so correct and so centrist (see my "Political Spectrum Perspective" observation), that they cannot fathom their own bias. But if you are not in support of the media biased position it has become very easy to recognize this bias. Thus, today, this is what is meant by the term "Media Bias"; the overwhelming support for one side of an issue, and the negative coverage of the opponents of the other side of an issue. The media does this with their adjectives, modifiers, and qualifiers when reporting the conservative position. It is also done by the lesser-reporting, or non-reporting, of the issues that may be harmful to the media bias position, as well as a lack of investigative reporting on those subjects that are damaging to the media bias position. Another method of media bias is reporting the process vs. the substance of a story. The biased media will focus their attention on either the process or the substance based on what is the most favorable to the media biased position, and/or downplay the process or substance if it is unfavorable to the media biased position.  Therefore, if the process is favorable to the media biased position they will concentrate on the process and downplay the substance, or if the substance is favorable to the media biased position they will concentrate on the substance and downplay the process. They will also heavily report when both the process and substance if favorable to their media biased position, or barely mention or ignore a story if the process and substance are unfavorable to the media biased position.

Politicians and activist that espouse the media biased position on an issue can expect favorable media coverage, while politicians and activists who espouse the opposite of the media biased position on an issue can expect highly unfavorable media coverage, if not outright derision by the media. Another technique of media bias is the interview of an expert on the media biased position and the reaction of non-experts on the media opposed position. This technique puts the media biased position in a favorable light, while the media opposed position is put in an unfavorable light. The media should be interviewing experts on both sides of the issue so the viewers, listeners or readers can make an intelligent and informed opinion on the issue (this is most readily apparent in the gun control debate).

Another example of modern journalism bias in the words and terms they utilize to describe events. The words utilized and the term definitions have different meanings when applied to Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders than they do for Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. When applied to Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, the words and terms have a positive connotation, while the words and terms they utilize for Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders often have a negative connotation. When it is not possible to have a positive connotation for words and deeds of Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, modern journalism often resort to neutral words and terms. This technique of applying positive or negative connotations of words or terms to different groups, based on the journalists' and a group's political proclivity, is another illustration of the biases of modern journalism.

A perfect example of this was the riots that occurred in the cities during 2020 and the riot that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. In the former case, journalism reported that the riots were ‘mostly peaceful protests’, while in the latter case, they reported that the riot was an ‘insurrection’. As is usually the case with modern journalism, the terms ‘mostly peaceful protests’ and ‘insurrection’ were utilized differently for Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders than it was for Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders.

Another example of media bias is the questions they ask as I have commented upon in my Chirps “Assertions are the Question” and “When is a Question an Assertion?”. These Chirps point out the insidious ways that a question can be formulated in such a manner as to support their biases.

A perfect example of this was in the recent 1^st Presidential debate between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. The first question was:

“We're calling this opening segment "Achieving Prosperity." And central to that is jobs. There are two economic realities in America today. There's been a record six straight years of job growth, and new census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation. However, income inequality remains significant, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.”

While Mr. Holt’s statements were factual, it was also incomplete. While job growth had increased, it had not increased enough to keep pace with the number of Americans entering the job force. Also, while the unemployment rate (number of people unsuccessfully seeking employment) had gone down, the under-employment rate (number of people who had given up seeking employment) had risen, which contributed to the lowering of the unemployment rate. In addition, the income increases are disproportionate depending on your socio-economic factors and inflationary impacts, and the comment “record rate” is debatable, and income inequality is highly debatable. There is also the question of where this growth is occurring, i.e. lower income, middle income, or higher-income jobs. As such his question is highly open to interpretation. In this light, it can be seen Mr. Holt’s question had an inherent media bias (and an example of my observation “Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave”).

A more neutral question that would have been unbiased would be:

“We're calling this opening segment "Achieving Prosperity." And central to that is jobs and the economy. The economic realities in America today are on everybody’s mind. There have been both positive and negative indicators of our current economic state. I would ask each of you what you think about our current economic state, and what you would do to improve the economy for all Americans.”

Another example of this is when President Obama and Mitt Romney debated in 2012. During one of these debates CNN's Candy Crowley overstepped her bounds by playing fact-checker when she interjected to confirm President Obama's claim about the evolution of the administration's talking points about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Many were highly critical of Crowley for her decision to confirm President Obama's claim that he had described the attack in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after it occurred. While Obama referred broadly to "acts of terror" during a Rose Garden address, the administration didn't include terrorism in its talking points in the days afterward.

Rather than asking President Obama and Mitt Romney to comment on the events and the Administration's reactions to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, Candy Crowley exhibited partisanship to President Obama rather than being an objective journalist.

These examples are why the Presidential Debate format needs to be reformed as outlined in my observation “Presidential Debates” and restated in the footnote of this article[i].

There is also the possibility of a false narrative entering the body politic because of journalistic misreporting. A perfect example of this is the “Hands up don’t shoot” utterance that supposedly occurred before a white police officer shot and killed a black suspect. It was so widely reported that this happened (despite caveats from many journalists) that it has become a false narrative, and a slogan of the Black Lives Matter movement. When it was discovered to be untrue many weeks later journalists reported it as such, but not nearly as widespread and prominent as the original misreporting. Thus, this false narrative is accepted as factual by many Americans and has poisoned the body politic. The result of this misreporting is that race relations in the United States have deteriorated, and the incidents of violence against police officers has dramatically increased. This is not the only example of misreporting that has occurred, and it seems to happen more and more because of the 24-hour news cycle, with reporters and editors attempt to get the story first rather than get the facts correct. Good reporting is not only about getting the story but getting the story correctly. A good reporter and editor will attempt to ascertain the veracity of the story before reporting the story. The veracity of the story seems to be less important than getting the story first in modern journalism. For a civil society to function justly the veracity of the story must be as important as the story itself, and journalists must rededicate themselves to the veracity of the story, as well as getting the story.

With the election of Donald Trump as President, we have seen a new stage of journalistic impropriety - the outright hostility to his administration, and the attempts to mischaracterize too discredit his administration. With the use of criminal leaks within his administration, to selective reporting, to misreporting the facts of his efforts, to overreporting the opposition to his administration, to not challenging statements of President Trump’s opponents, to the extensive utilization of unnamed sources, the press has become the major opposition to President Trump’s administration. I am all for a press that is wary and investigative of an administration, but I would be more supportive of the press if they had shown the same wariness and investigative news during the previous administration.

This can be readily seen by the coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office from the following chart. While President Trump has stirred controversy from his tweets, statements, and some of his actions, the intense negativity of the media is out of proportion to the reality of the situation. A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump. Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets (and it did not include other media outlets such as ABC, MSNBC, CNBC, other major newspaper and national magazines, as well as the nightly talk shows and comedy shows). They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations as follows:

This situation has only gotten worse as the administration of President Trump has proceeded. The Russian Election Collusion allegations and Muller investigation, and the Ukrainian President telephone call followed by the Impeachment of President Trump are all perfect examples of the death of journalism. The use of unattributed sources, innuendo and sometimes slander, almost exclusively anti-President Trump sources and interviews, and over the top negative depiction of President Trump and his administration and supporters by journalistic reporters and commentators has become destructive to the proper functioning of government and civil society. Indeed, it has bordered, if not passed, into sedition and subversion.

A brief definition of sedition and subversion is in order:

• Sedition - Organized incitement of rebellion or civil disorder against authority or the state, usually by speech or writing.
• Subversive - Intending to subvert, overturn or undermine a government or authority.

While the press is not organized in its opposition, it has exhibited a herd mentality to its opposition to President Trump. And a stampeding herd can be even more destructive than an organized herd. And by the very misuse of the press freedoms, we see the attempt to undermine the government and authority of President Trump.

This Media Bias has been a detriment to the body politic. The opponents to the media biased position no longer think that they can get a fair hearing of their position to a clear majority of Americans, and especially to voting Americans. Without this fair hearing, it has become much more difficult to run and win an election if you do not support the Media biased position, which unfairly tilts the balance of power in America, and leads to feelings of disenfranchisement by those opposed to the media biased position. It is also why many Americans are turning to alternative news sources such as Fox News, The Washington Times and the few remaining conservative newspapers, as well as conservative talk radio and conservative Internet websites. This also explains why the readership, listeners, and viewers of the Media Bias outlets has been in a steady decline for many years, while the alternative news sources readers, listeners, and viewers have increased. All journalist should remember that:

“With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”

Thus, all journalists should be very mindful of their responsibility to gather all the facts, check the veracity of the facts, and present all sides of a story objectively. As this has not been the case with modern journalism the 4th Estate has become the 5th Column for liberal-progressive ideology and policy, and the Democrat candidates who espouse these views. In  the year 2020, and continuing into 2021, modern journalism has adopted a mantra of "Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, and See No Evil" when it comes to Progressives/Leftist and Democrat Party leaders' words and deeds. Indeed, the opposite is true for those that would oppose Progressives/Leftist in that they, "Hear All Evil, Speak All Evil, and See All Evil", of those in opposition to Progressives/Leftist or Democratic Party leaders. For more on this impact of media bias check out my article "I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore!" that is one of the consequences of Media Bias.

Therefore, Media Bias is so widespread today that it is widely recognized by the general public, and even journalists comment upon their lack of support by the general public. This is supported by all public polling, and even though I am not a believer in public polling, I can see this in how the public does not respond to journalism reporting. The media needs to reform itself to return to more objective reporting or it will indeed die. But I am not hopeful that this will occur and perhaps the media should die. If modern journalism does die, then perhaps it may be reborn from its ashes as in The Firebird of Slavic folklore.

 

[i] The current format for Presidential Debates is not conducive to illumination. Besides the journalistic bias (as outlined in this article) many of the questions are intended to provoke a visceral reaction.  I would suggest we return to the format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Three debates would be scheduled; one on Foreign Policy, one on Domestic Policy, and one on any other issues. Each candidate would prepare ten question they want to ask the other candidate on the debate topic. The first candidate would get two minutes to ask the question, the other candidate would get five minutes to respond to the question, and the questioner would get three minutes to rebut the answer. The other candidate would then get to ask their question utilizing the same constrictions. This would go back and forth until all ten questions from each candidate would be debated. The moderator would only be responsible for assuring the candidates stay within their time constrictions. I believe that this format would provide a better forum for each candidate to express themselves, and bring out the issues that they believe are important for the American people to understand. The questions the candidate asks would also illuminate the character and integrity of the candidate. This also puts the debates into the hands of the candidates - where it belongs.