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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 75 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    All those newspaper’s are inhabited with people of the same immoral 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.

    Excellent idea. ☺

    • #61
  2. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Don’t try and save journalism. Destroy it.

    I’m sorry, but Mollie, Claire and Jon chose badly.

    To the extent that any journalistic enterprise continues to carry any social or political cachet, it is a danger to the republic. Journalists as a class are self-regarding, incurious and entitled. Which would be fine, had they not arrogated to themselves an entirely undeserved social and political position. (Made only possible by other social pathologies, not least of which is the laughably stupid vanity of politicians.)

    That someone like Donald Trump can tie the cream of the journalistic “profession” in knots for over a year says all you need to know.

    Journalism. It isn’t worth it. Just. Say. No.

    • #62
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    genferei (View Comment):
    Don’t try and save journalism. Destroy it.

    I’m sorry, but Mollie, Claire and Jon chose badly.

    To the extent that any journalistic enterprise continues to carry any social or political cachet, it is a danger to the republic. Journalists as a class are self-regarding, incurious and entitled. Which would be fine, had they not arrogated to themselves an entirely undeserved social and political position. (Made only possible by other social pathologies, not least of which is the laughably stupid vanity of politicians.)

    That someone like Donald Trump can tie the cream of the journalistic “profession” in knots for over a year says all you need to know.

    Journalism. It isn’t worth it. Just. Say. No.

    I love your rant, geneferei! Any replacement you can recommend? I want to still get my news somehow!

    • #63
  4. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Lois Lane (View Comment):  …
    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.

    All those journalism grads (99% of journalists) took an Ethics of Journalism class, probably in their sophomore year.  What they were taught was the ethics associated with the “American model of journalism,” in which fact-checking, double-checking, correctly citing sources, fairness, neutral language, presenting both sides, etc., are promoted.

    All that has been tossed aside as mass media actually embraced the European model of advocacy journalism, in which every publication is advocating and spinning for a particular political persuasion.

    But we can use their code of ethics against them.

    Consider Mollie Z. H. as our primary example.  She nearly single-handedly forced the Washington Post to cover the Kermit Gosnell story.  She did it by complaining about their double standards, and then when they protested she quoted their own ethics back at them.  She played journalism ethics jiu jitsu masterfully and forced that awful story out into the open.

    • #64
  5. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    MJBubba (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment): …
    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.

    All those journalism grads (99% of journalists) took an Ethics of Journalism class, probably in their sophomore year. What they were taught was the ethics associated with the “American model of journalism,” in which fact-checking, double-checking, correctly citing sources, fairness, neutral language, presenting both sides, etc., are promoted.

    All that has been tossed aside as mass media actually embraced the European model of advocacy journalism, in which every publication is advocating and spinning for a particular political persuasion.

    But we can use their code of ethics against them.

    Consider Mollie Z. H. as our primary example. She nearly single-handedly forced the Washington Post to cover the Kermit Gosnell story. She did it by complaining about their double standards, and then when they protested she quoted their own ethics back at them. She played journalism ethics jiu jitsu masterfully and forced that awful story out into the open.

    That’s an excellent example.  She had a platform and could force them to respond.  An obscure person like yours truly would not have been able to do this.  So we need conservatives in media who can’t be ignored by the MSM.

    • #65
  6. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Any replacement you can recommend? I want to still get my news somehow!

    Let’s break down what this ‘news’ consists of.

    Things that are of no consequence but give a frisson of entertainment because they are supposedly true, but you don’t really care if they are or not. The latest doings of an actor or a Kardashian fall into this category. But so does 99.9999% of foreign affairs news. Really, it is of no consequence whether the EastAsian militia is closing in on Pepe, the capital of Kekestan, a key province in Ruratania, no matter how many talking head ‘experts’ or searing human interest stories are written/broadcast about it. Most domestic stories fall into this category, too.

    Things that are of some consequence because they reflect actual facts that are important to you and that you understand. Sports scores. Business moves. Product launches. This stuff can be had for free from the teams, leagues or business enterprises themselves. You don’t need a journalist to rewrite the press release or provide context.

    Things that are of some consequence because they reflect actual facts that are important to you and that you need help to understand. Such as legislative developments. Trade associations and law firms will fall over themselves to explain the nuts and bolts. I don’t see that journalists add anything, here, not in their actual, real world incarnation.

    Commentary on facts or supposed facts. This is basically entertainment. Certainly any political commentary is basically fiction. Which is fine, as long as it is recognised as such. I don’t see having a column or program in/on a mainstream/legacy media outlet makes such storytelling/commentary any better than, say, the Member Feed here.

    So – what are you really looking for?

    • #66
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    genferei (View Comment):
    So – what are you really looking for?

    I’m looking for a description of events, national and international. I want to know about Supreme Court rulings. I want to know what is going on in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and other parts of the world. I want to know what is going on in this country, culturally, legislatively, and yes, I appreciate a mixture of commentaries that give me some views on these events. I want to get this information in a way that is efficient, practical and balanced. Do I read the WSJ cover to cover? No. I read the opinion page that has left and right; I read the international news. I read some technology news. I don’t want to have to go to multiple resources to find out all this information; as a consumer, I expect publications and other media to provide that information to me, and I will pay for it.

    • #67
  8. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Having a free press is essential in a democratic republic, @genferei.

    I suppose it didn’t matter to me that other people were being oppressed by the IRS, but I’m awful glad Kimberly Strassel spent so much time on that story.  (What I don’t know can hurt me.)

    Understanding foreign policy is also extremely important.  I personally can’t go to “Pepe, the capital of Kekestan, a key province in Ruratania,” but the President can send my Army kid there.  That makes Pepe pretty significant on my map, so I’d like to be aware of what exactly is happening on the ground.  This does not mean I need a lot of talking head commentary, but I definitely need journalists who will report on this place.

    In my mind to say journalists “add nothing” is a bit like saying historians “add nothing.”  Historians also interpret facts as they say fit, you see.  That’s why you read lots of historians if interested in a particular topic.  Historiography is rich and ever changing, but you don’t just shrug and go, “Eh.  Civil War.  Ovvveeeerrr!”

    I also don’t consider entertainment coverage “news.”  Those stories get people to buy papers though.  The Kardashians could not be created by a media that didn’t have a consumer base willing to “pay” for pictures of Kim’s backside.  I can’t fault the market for providing a product.

    will say on that front that a guilty pleasure for me used to be People magazine.  That’s total airplane reading.  Mindless.  Lots of pretty dresses.  Higher circulation than the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.  

    I don’t really consider that “journalism” but it is some of which you speak, and the stories writers for that publication circulate are culture shaping.  (That’s some power.  Or… does the culture shape the publication???)

    I no longer buy People like I no longer buy sickly sweet wines, but the reason it exists is because it takes a while to develop an intellectual palette, and many people never do.

    The answer isn’t getting rid of all journalism.

    • #68
  9. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I don’t want to have to go to multiple resources to find out all this information; as a consumer, I expect publications and other media to provide that information to me, and I will pay for it.

    I think you are going to be disappointed.

    All of the pressures on journalism and its alternatives today are splitting resources down into their specialized components, where bias is either obvious or immaterial to the topic.  News consumers are abandoning supposedly bias-free fact aggregators (newspapers, journals,TV news) in favor of raw material from first-hand and/or topic-oriented bloggers (Totten, Yon, WUWT, JihadWatch, Slashdot, Reddit), acknowledged-bias link aggregators (Drudge, Instapundit, RealClear…), and trusted personalities with their own platforms (PowerLine, Volokh & friends, HuffPo, etc.).

    You aren’t going to find an unbiased news and event aggregator because such functions are performed by people, and people are unavoidably biased.  Journalists claim to be unbiased, and some even believe that, but we all know it isn’t true and cannot be true.

    • #69
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I don’t want to have to go to multiple resources to find out all this information; as a consumer, I expect publications and other media to provide that information to me, and I will pay for it.

    I think you are going to be disappointed.

    All of the pressures on journalism and its alternatives today are splitting resources down into their specialized components, where bias is either obvious or immaterial to the topic. News consumers are abandoning supposedly bias-free fact aggregators (newspapers, journals,TV news) in favor of raw material from first-hand and/or topic-oriented bloggers (Totten, Yon, WUWT, JihadWatch, Slashdot, Reddit), acknowledged-bias link aggregators (Drudge, Instapundit, RealClear…), and trusted personalities with their own platforms (PowerLine, Volokh & friends, HuffPo, etc.).

    You aren’t going to find an unbiased news and event aggregator because such functions are performed by people, and people are unavoidably biased. Journalists claim to be unbiased, and some even believe that, but we all know it isn’t true and cannot be true.

    I’m not much of a blogger except for here on Ricochet. And that takes time, since I’m pretty active. I’ve signed up for daily emails from The Federalist. It saddens me that our friends on the Left are unlikely to come here for the other side, and will frequent the Daily Kos or MoveOn.org (which I don’t read because I’ve found them too ugly).

    • #70
  11. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Lois Lane (View Comment):
    Having a free press is essential in a democratic republic, genferei.

    Nope. Freedom of speech, certainly. But recent history has shown that the actual existing press is profoundly antidemocratic. I’m not asking for laws against journalism. I would like the profession of journalist to be treated with the scorn amd derision it deserves. The government should not force journalists to wear a scarlet J, but if a journalist walks down the street small children really should jeer. Spitting would be unsanitary.

    • #71
  12. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I don’t want to have to go to multiple resources to find out all this information

    Aren’t you going to end up with the International Buffet of information, with the faux dim-sum being the same consistency as the ‘Italian’ Bolognese and the ‘Austrian’ schnitzel being as authentic as the ‘French’ dressing? Surely the lesson of 2016 is that anyone with a column in a nationally recognized media outlet Doesn’t Know Anything.

    • #72
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    genferei (View Comment):
    Aren’t you going to end up with the International Buffet of information, with the faux dim-sum being the same consistency as the ‘Italian’ Bolognese and the ‘Austrian’ schnitzel being as authentic as the ‘French’ dressing? Surely the lesson of 2016 is that anyone with a column in a nationally recognized media outlet Doesn’t Know Anything.

    Aside from the possibility that you’re pulling my leg, are you not interested at all in what is going on in the world? I have a friend who feels that way; even before she moved to Costa Rica, she refused to view or read news at all. I must say, she led a fairly stress-free life.

    • #73
  14. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    genferei (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):
    Having a free press is essential in a democratic republic, genferei.

    Nope. Freedom of speech, certainly. But recent history has shown that the actual existing press is profoundly antidemocratic. I’m not asking for laws against journalism. I would like the profession of journalist to be treated with the scorn amd derision it deserves. The government should not force journalists to wear a scarlet J, but if a journalist walks down the street small children really should jeer. Spitting would be unsanitary.

    I am with @susanquinn in that I think you are mostly joking.  That said, I profoundly disagree with you, even though I recognize press bias and understand that the profession has problems.

    • #74
  15. Snirtler Inactive
    Snirtler
    @Snirtler

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    ^ This a thousand times.

    • #75
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.