Commentary

It Must Be True, I Saw It On TV

by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, September 18, 2009

It was reported this week that just 29 percent of 1,506 people surveyed by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press believe that the media "get the facts straight," down from 37 percent in the most recent survey in 2007. What's more, 63 percent say that the news is "frequently inaccurate," the highest level since Pew began the survey 24 years ago. Most unfortunately, Pew did not offer its own definition of "news media," meaning respondents could have been giving equal weight to bloggers, Fox News or The New York Times.

So America's bottom line seems to be accuracy. But in whose hands? Take the same who, what, when, where, and how and put it into five different hands, you will get 5 different interpretations of those "facts" that will give each story a slightly different tint. I think that if it comes from a publication/program that a reader likes (meaning it generally skews pretty close to their own personal perspectives, biases and stereotypes) then the reader would probably say they "got it right." After all, readers are no more objective than are reporters.

But "journalism" didn't do itself any favors when in response to cable news which delivered the news sooner (and with video) it decided to give reporters a "voice" to try and distinguish its stories from the historically anonymous "staff" byline. And when that failed, organizations built from the ground up to gather hard news starting moving more toward "back of the book" coverage of lifestyle issues like health, beauty, fashion, entertainment -- and worst of all, celebrity. Makeover followed makeover until there was hardly any room anymore for important news, so some "news" operations set up camp to the political left or right to set themselves apart. Personalities became more important than the subjects they covered. Q ratings ruled. Lurid celebrity photos became the new gold standard of successful publishing.

Then the Internet happened.

I think folks who are a little more serious about news "objectivity" (let's call them current newspaper subscribers, a dying breed to be sure) are careful to click through and make certain that what they read is coming from a credible source. A credible source is no longer just the dead tree news industry, but often can include bloggers (many of whom come from dead tree backgrounds) who still know how to produce copy that is relatively free of partisan perspective. Or at least they make no secret that they have a strong opinion and that theirs is but one perspective to consider.

The problem now is everyone else. The vast percentage of people in this country get their news from television without thinking for a moment that news from Viacom might have a purposely different tint than Fox or CNBC. Moreover, they don't then take the time to read a variety of publications (now easier than ever) in order to rebalance what they've heard on TV. Or they catch a snippet online without considering the source and walk away thinking they are informed.

There has never been a time in history when the news was entirely accurate or objective. A confluence of factors has all but forced those who at least in theory TRY to practice journalism -- as we came to define it 50 years ago -- to be more subjective and opinionated. This, perhaps more than anything, contributes to the Pew results. But the fact is that even in the golden age of news (call it the 60s if you will) if you relied on just TIME or The Washington Post or even The New York Times, you only got a piece of the puzzle. It has always been incumbent on those who seek the truth (to the extent it exists) to broaden their reading and to get a well-rounded perspective on any story -- especially ones with controversy and varied POVs. The Internet now makes it easy to read foreign newspapers and journals, many of which have a totally different take on the news than U.S. papers or broadcasters.

Journalists are an easy target, and to an extent, they have themselves to blame for the public's negative perception -- but I suspect that if some of that public got off their butts and did a little more homework, they might come to appreciate what a free press, warts and all, is all about.

commentary, journalism, research

3 comments about "It Must Be True, I Saw It On TV".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Monica Bower from TERiX Computer Service, September 18, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
Seriously, who hears "News Media" and thinks "Bloggers"?
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned foreign newspapers and journals. Sadly our news media - papers, TV, newsmags, blogs, Fark - seems to have more in common with the prevalent sensationalism of Iranian news than on any journalistic revelation of fact. And globally more and more the news is starting to look like CNN where to fill up 24 hours you get the same hour's worth of news over and over, dissected by dubious experts and then subjected to tragically uninformed debate on the blogosphere.
Nobody cares about the news, now, all that matters is your opinion. And where your eyeballs are looking to form that opinion, more importantly.
Reply

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, September 18, 2009 at 10:11 a.m.

Without order, there is chaos. - Goes back to ancient times where it came from. - Opinions running wild without facts yields chaos. Now add chacaphony of voices speaking and not listening and see what you get - e.g. tea parties with people screeching out terminology for which they do not have the least clue of what the words mean. Communism does not mean Russian. Democracy was built and ran with a healthy slave economy. And even their own family runs with a totalitarian, socialistic government. Nothing is free. Now, let's listen and learn as we were taught in kindergarten. Another winner, George.

Daryl Moen from University of Missouri, September 25, 2009 at 8:44 a.m.

Actually, the Pew report does break down attitudes of specific press outlets and breaks down Republican and Democratic attitudes. So yes, in the overall rankings, respondents could have given equal weight, but you can see how that falls in the breakdown.