Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Sad State of Journalism
“Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.”
So said Michael Goodwin, the chief political columnist for the New York Post during a presentation at Hillsdale College. The speech was adapted for the Imprimis publication, June 2017. I think his comment reflects the attitude of many conservatives. I believe that many of his observations describe this newest wave of fake news, distortions and biases demonstrated by the national press.
One of his first comments suggested at least one origin for sensational and glamorous journalism: Watergate. He says,
Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
He also points to a line often used during his tenure at Columbia University School of Journalism: “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” He suggests that this phrase became distorted to mean that every person afflicted must be helped, and that afflicting the comfortable meant “endless taxation.” With these kinds of distortions, the groundwork was laid to support an increasingly liberal bias.
Then Goodwin brings us current with reflections on the media’s coverage of Trump. As much as the media detested him, they began to cover him more and more often during the campaign, because their ratings improved. And with the growing publicity, more people were attending Trump’s events. Suddenly, the man who had no chance of winning was in every headline, on television and in the newspapers. The media began to realize what they had done: the very person they despised was one of two people running for president, and they were helping him with free publicity. And they were furious. As a result, Goodwin explains,
Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.
Given the details of Trump’s background, tough scrutiny of him could certainly be justified. Goodwin quoted the New York Times media reporter:
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Goodwin’s response was direct: don’t. You shouldn’t cover a story where you can’t be objective. “Go cover sports or entertainment.”
But the editor of the Times, Dean Baquet, wouldn’t have agreed with Goodwin as he explained during his interview at the Nieman Lab. He believed the Times reporter, Jim Rutenberg, had given everyone permission to report the news in a fresh way, referring to his own past experience with the controversial Swift Boat story [that focused on discrediting John Kerry during his presidential run]. Baquet said,
I think that he’s [Trump] challenged our language. He will have changed journalism, he really will have. I was either editor or managing editor of the L.A. Times during the Swift Boat incident. Newspapers did not know — we did not quite know how to do it. I remember struggling with the reporter, Jim Rainey, who covers the media now, trying to get him to write the paragraph that laid out why the Swift Boat allegation was false…We didn’t know how to write the paragraph that said, ‘This is just false.’ We struggle with that. I think that Trump has ended that struggle. I think we now say stuff. We fact-check him. We write it more powerfully that it’s false.
He is essentially blaming Trump for journalists’ contemptible and unethical behavior.
Goodwin responded to Baquet’s comments:
Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.
Since the Times sets the standard for newspapers nationwide, we can be quite certain that most newspapers are following this unethical direction. Partisanship and opinions are now part of the journalistic norm. Trump is frequently called a liar. Barack Obama, in spite of the many times he “misspoke,” never was.
One other point I’d like to make is about journalistic ethics. They still exist in theory. You can find one list at the Society of Professional Journalists. Three noteworthy guidelines to journalists are:
- Take responsibility for the accuracy of the work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
- Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
- Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
Another resource is the Ethical Journalism Network.
I’ll end with Goodwin’s closing statement:
If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.
Do you think there is way back, or better said, a way forward?
Published in Politics
The problem with this is that “truth” is often in the eye of the beholder. If you recall, President Obama thought that Fox News was endlessly lying, so he tried to exclude that organization from his press room.
That would be a gnarly power for a politician… inviting only those outlets that he/she found to be “honest.”
It’s up to consumers to punish news outlets when they constantly prevaricate. Not governments.
Excellent points, Lois. As I recall, history is your area. I agree about the history of journalism. They trashed George Washington unmercifully, even his friends writing nasty things about him, anonymously. But there is the comment of @mjbubba:
Another huge shift came about because of the G.I. Bill. Universities all over America went into a booming growth mode as soldiers went to use their government assistance to achieve college degrees. This growth prompted universities to expand their offerings of degrees. Journalism first appeared as a specialization within a degree in communications. The first journalism degrees were awarded in the mid-1950s. By the end of the 1980s all entry-level jobs in journalism required a degree in journalism.
For all of those who say that it has always been like this with the media, I’d suggest that’s not accurate. The media has been Left as long as we can remember (mostly the last 70 years), but I think it’s gotten much worse. Also, journalism has supposedly become “professional”; we’ve come to expect much more from them (see the OP on ethics statements). And their impact, with our receiving global news not in weeks or months but in seconds, puts a heavy responsibility on journalists. If they lie, they could have an international, disastrous impact. So to me, it doesn’t matter that they have a history of Left bias. We must somehow demand a change. It will probably never be fair, but there must be more balance.
I do the same. We have to assume that any publication will have a bias (since it’s published by biased human beings) so to some degree we have to decide who is worthy of our trust and consideration. Hopefully they are mostly aligned with organizations we can trust, too, but not always. I think, too, that we as customers must begin to take responsibility for interpreting and checking out what we read. Even for those who are on “our side.” My hope is that although all of us have biases, and since information is so readily available everywhere, people will begin to wonder about what has validity or not.
I would say that the professionalization of journalism set up some false expectations though.
Here’s a theory: writers became trained “experts” in their field, so readers got less critical. Also, when those “experts” were all forced to go through the same doors to get a degree in journalism–Columbia University, for example–the diversity of views held by journalists naturally narrowed.
I might be wrong. I am definitely not an expert on the history of journalism. I do realize more and more how the narrow doors to places of influence are kept narrow per credentialing.
I also think their should be ethical standards, but I don’t trust newspapers in general to follow them. I don’t think there’s an evil conspiracy or anything like that. I just think there are a lot of factors that make real objectivity a pipe dream.
The only thing I can think of that would really correct this problem and force standards to be honored would be the market punishing erring publications, but this brings me back to the “people buy what they want to believe” problem.
(Sigggghhhhh….)
I wish I could say you’re wrong (!) or that I disagree, but I completely agree! ;-) What came to mind is how people respond to experts in general; they must know what’s right so they give up all their power and responsibility for being a wise consumer. Think of the people who get ripped off by roofers, car mechanics (no offense to anyone who is one) or even to doctors! But! People are beginning to realize that doctors are not perfect; that medicine is as much an art as a science; that medical folks make mistakes; and, again, we have to be wise consumers. Fortunately the media doesn’t have a direct impact on our health (most of the time) but your point that the public will have to punish irresponsible media is spot on.
Re: Swift boaters
The problem here is that the men accusing Kerry of lying were the eyewitnesses. To “debunk” the story they had to call a large group of honorable veterans liars. To admit the story was true was calling the Democratic nominee a fabulist. It was a no-win situation for them. But if they were going to lose anyway they decided to lose with dishonor and side with Kerry.
With regard to Trump, I’m convinced the MSM saw him as a “win-win.” By giving him lots of coverage, they increased their circulation/ratings while at the same time they made it less likely one of the other Republican candidates would win the nomination. Hence, in their eyes, they’d end up with the weakest Republican candidate to challenge their pre-selected choice for the presidency – HRC – and they’d manage to get the highest possible circulation/ratings in the bargain! Only after his win could they realize that they had created what was – in their eyes – a monster! And because they believed they’d created him, they also believed it was their responsibility to destroy him, hence the overwhelmingly negative coverage they give him now.
Actually it may be that the only way forward is for total exposure and transparency. Newspapers just say up front what side they are on, same with reporters. This business of trying to claim an unbiased report when everything all of us do is biased, well it’s just a lie. Stop playing games, you’re fooling fewer people every day. I’d much rather pick up a newspaper that claims upfront in its title whose team they are on, even if it’s not mine.
I guess I worry about what @lois-lane said; that people would read or watch the media that supports their biases and rarely if ever get a different perspective. In fact, I wonder (if it’s possible) that if a paper declared itself progressive (which the NYT is), would they print anything that wasn’t progressive? Would they refuse to print any stories that were important information when they didn’t support their agenda? I’m glad you’re being creative, @cdor, but I’m not sure that will get us where we want to be.
There were three people on the history committee. One was a journalist who became a professor. The other two were history professors with specialties in colonialism and women’s studies. Far from ideal backgrounds to judge a book about technology. In 2003, the National Academy of Engineers gave the Draper Award ($500K) for GPS. I managed to get some of the internal deliberations of the committee and they were incompetent. They used the autobiography of one on the honorees as evidence on his behalf. One of their “experts” stated that putting atomic clocks on the GPS satellites slowed down implementation of the system by two to five years. That may be true, but having clocks in the satellites makes GPS much more robust. Here’s my review of Jacobsen’s book from Amazon:
In the last decade, I have written and spoken extensively about GPS. I am the co-author of GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones, a narrative history of its invention and development. Recently, I was listening to a podcast of an interview with Annie Jacobson at the Spy Museum. I was surprised that she credited DARPA with the creation of GPS, since NONE of my research supports this. So I got a copy of her book to see what it claims.
On pages 249-250, she makes many incorrect statements:
“DARPA’s pioneering GPS program was called TRANSIT.” Transit was the first satellite based navigation system; it was conceptualized in 1958. DARPA played a major role in the program by funding it. GPS refers to a later system begun in 1973. Transit was NEVER called GPS.
“After several failed launches, TRANSIT finally took up residence in space in June 1963. To deny enemy access to this kind of precise targeting information, the system was originally designed with an offset built in, called selective availability (SA).” Selective availability was a degradation of the civilian signal for GPS. It was not used on Transit, which was much less precise.
To be continued:
“In 1973, the Pentagon ordered DARPA to create a single system shared by all the military services.” As I mentioned, she made a similar statement at the Spy Museum. This is incorrect. On April 17, 1973, Deputy Secretary of Defense William P. Clements, Jr., ordered the Air Force to be the executive service for a Joint Program Office for the Defense Navigation Satellite System (later called GPS). It was to be a joint Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Program Office. DARPA was not mentioned because it played no role in the 1973 JPO. Later, DARPA funded development of miniaturized GPS receivers, but it DID NOT create the 1973 synthesis of the Navy’s Timation and the Air Force’s 621B programs (this is covered in detail in GPS Declassified). The Decision Coordinating Paper Number 121 (Revised) Defense Navigation Satellite Development Program (June 7, 1973) covers a meeting on the West Coast on June 6 and 7, 1973. There were Navy, Air Force and Army presentations. DARPA is nowhere mentioned because it was not involved in the process.
Ms. Jacobsen has an endnote for page 250. She appears to have not read this reference very closely, since it correctly states that “TRANSIT is scheduled to be replaced by the DoD Global Positioning System (GPS) which uses different technology, in 1996.” Her assertion that DARPA developed GPS in 1973 is not found in this document, so it’s unclear what the source of this fable was. Perhaps it stems from her confusion of Transit with GPS. There are eighteen references to GPS in the document, but it nowhere claims that DARPA played a role in its initial formulation in 1973. Many of the references pertain to the dual use of GPS satellites which carry nuclear detonation detection systems in addition to the navigational instruments. Phil Klass, in the 11/26/73 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, wrote that the [Defense Navigation Satellite System] program has been renamed the Global Positioning System.
On page 253 she states that [under Secretary of Defense Harold Brown in the Carter Administration] “Global Positioning System technologies were accelerated at whirlwind speeds”. It’s true that the first Block 1 (test) GPS satellites were launched in the Carter Administration. However, in 1979 it cut back GPS from 24 to 18 satellites. This would have limited its accuracy and usefulness. When the Block 2 (operational) satellites were launched beginning in 1989, the decision was made to go back to 24 satellites. Thus, there was no acceleration of GPS under Secretary Brown; rather there were significant cut backs in the program.
I have not read the rest of the book, but the sloppy research on GPS is in line with the criticisms of her earlier books, and calls into question the factual bases for other DARPA projects she discussed. I posted a brief criticism of the book on her website. I commend her for allowing it to appear. That demonstrates that she is a person of integrity. Perhaps she will correct the section on GPS in a subsequent edition of the book. There is a vast literature on the creation of GPS (and controversy about the relative importance of the Navy’s Timation system, which my dad Roger Easton began in 1964, versus the Air Force’s 621B). It’s surprising that Ms. Jacobsen appears to be unaware of it. END OF REVIEW
If there are this number of problems with three pages of the book, I suspect that there are major problems in the remainder of it. Alas, too often journalists write about subjects they know little about which is how errors are propagated in the literature.
I hope @richardeaston that such evidence of an error in what is a book that has been given extra prestige per finalist status would interest the author and publisher enough to correct errors in all future editions.
This is also an interesting statement.
I’ve had discussions with friends getting/with doctorates about this. They hate that journalists write history books–often more successful history books than those written by historians because historians aren’t always very good writers–but all journalists are not created equal, and narrowing history books to credentialed authors further narrows the stream of information in ways that aren’t all about quality control….
That’s cool that your father’s history ties into this story. While we should all want the correct story all the time, I can see why it’s especially important to you to get the narrative right.
My book is pretty obscure due to the publisher not sending out any advance copies to newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal. But we did get a warm reception last year from Air Force Space Command (its then head, Gen Hyten, introduced our main talk). And we were just on C-SPAN3.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?427553-2/global-positioning-system-history
Jacobsen went on her book tour in 2015 announcing that DARPA invented GPS. Any correction will receive far less attention, but that’s life.
Richard,
You have hit upon a phenomenon that is endemic to the left. If you believe in propaganda not the truth then you are always looking for opportunities to have your lie go unchallenged. Fresh from the actual hearings, people who had watched overwhelmingly believed Thomas, not Hill. However, as the memory faded and many people who had not seen the hearings were given false accounts by the relentlessly lying left, many people were convinced of Hill’s innuendos.
There is a lesson here. We can’t let propaganda go unchallenged. No matter how old the issue it is important to challenge the liars.
Regards,
Jim
That is one of Trump’s strengths. He knows the importance of striking back and giving his opponents memorable labels (crooked Hillary). He sometimes overreacts and does not always pick his battles wisely, but at least he fights.
Susan, if I pick up the NY Times, I will never expect to see articles supporting my viewpoint anyway. If I turn on MSNBC it’s the same drill. Stop letting them hide behind a shield of honest even handed fact based reporting when it’s not. And I really don’t know what anyone could do to change that. At least if they are honest about their bias a reader could than make an adjusted judgement towards its veracity.
Congratulations. And yes. Correcting the record is hard.
Agreed.
Regards,
Jim
I do believe people choose their own bubbles, but I agree with this, too. If I cite The National Review, some people will dismiss this as having an openly conservative bias despite the journalistic rigor. Yet the New York Times gets to hide behind the idea that it’s “objective”? It’s obvious to people who don’t look at this publication as some sort of sacrosanct bastion of integrity that it slants heavily left. While I can’t fix people never reading multiple sources–and I often read articles in the NYT, btw–I would like it if some publications weren’t able to claim a higher plain just because they pretend to be objective.
Regardless, I tell my students they should read/subscribe to BOTH the WSJ and the NYT. Find articles about the same subjects. Between accounts in the flagship conservative newspaper (which has a higher circulation) and the flagship progressive paper, they should be able to discern what is spin and what is fact.
To make everyone do this, we need to get better at education.
I have a caution here. The editorial board of the WSJ is conservative but the reporters are often leftists.
I think that the body of the paper is more “objective” than any other paper in the country. However, I don’t tell kids to abandon their critical thinking skills just because an article leans in a certain direction. ;) And if they are truly interested in a story, they can seek out more publications that give them more information.
The thing is this… At some point you have to depend on reporters. It is not possible to delve into every narrative, so you do the best with the biggest disseminators of news. With that in mind, I think that the WSJ and NYT provide at least some balance.
Point taken, cdor. I sure wish, too, that we could find a way to call out the liars as liars, as @jamesgawron demands, and that people would hear it!
I wonder, too, if there’s a way to reach all the newspapers who depend on the NYT and Wapo to be their sources of information? What would need to happen to get all of them to seriously question their association with and dependence on the NYT for their news? If we could only knock the NYT off its pedestal with those organizations, we might have a better chance of making an impact on the mainstream media.
All those newspaper’s are inhabited with people of the same imoral world view. It’s the inhabitants that are the problem. Not the institution. Same with academe, same with Gov.
The root really is academe
Maybe we could convince someone like the Koch Brothers to buy up some of those newspapers and begin to introduce conservative editors; bring them in from places like the Washington Examiner or the WSJ. Or start a journalism school that actually teaches ethics and explains that this approach doesn’t mean selling your agenda; it means honesty and balance.
It’s both interesting and laughable that the negative coverage of Trump, the investigations, the relentless criticism, all of it is backfiring. The liberals including the media, politicians, etc. keep digging a bigger hole instead of offering fair coverage, and getting back to the nation’s best interests. The quote above from the NYT reporter about Trump playing up to the nation’s racial discord and cozying to the anti-American dictators was a description of Obama!
In the meantime, illegal border crossings are down 50%, dangerous gang members are being deported, Trump has encouraged industry and manufacturing to stay in the US, resulting in thousands of new jobs (another headlines today from BMW 1,000 new jobs), someone is finally confronting the reality of consequences of ignoring NK, even walking back the Cuba situation, etc. That’s news.
It’s only been 6 months. Oh, and now there is more scrutiny on Obama and co. since the Russia investigation. They are opening their own can of worms. Truth eventually wins – whether someone writes it or lies. The better journalists who actually live by ethics and value their craft will hopefully improve.
I love your optimism, FSC! Those things are true, although we may be the only ones talking about them. Do we know if the general population is getting the message? I don’t know whether to believe polls anymore, since on elections lately their predictions have been so far off. My concern is that people might just be saying, sure, that’s true, but we’re still stuck with Trump! Then again, more time may need to pass. I’m all for optimism!
Well, the polls once again predicted a win in GA as well as other districts and the Democrats were buying into the polls and they lost all 5 races. Let them keep trusting the polls.