“There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil - remain detached from the great” – Walter Lippman
Have we become so jaded that we no longer demand truth from journalists, and fail to hold their feet to the fire when facts are distorted? Our ability to interpret the world has always been dependent on the exchange of information, the delivery of what we call “the news”. How can we develop our opinions and be good citizens when we can’t trust that the news we are hearing is reality.
Years ago information came via the town crier; or by horse, with a message sent from the king, or delivered by Pony Express. Beginning in the 17th century, newspapers appeared, and along with them we developed a set of standards for journalism. Basic to these principles was the demand for truth.
Soon newspapers developed into a strong viable business with advertising and competitive marketing. It was this commercial rivalry that created an atmosphere where getting it first became more important than the principle of getting it right. The advent of radio and television dramatically changed the speed and manner with which we receive our news, and soon, the lines between editorials and news became blurred. Cable news made the problem worse when it cast “personalities” as the hosts of news shows which are meant to be entertaining as much as informational.
When we add internet blogs to this mix of mass communication, we have a multimedia system of journalism that seems to have lost all semblance of basic journalistic principles and practice. Is it too much to expect that the comments be true, even though they are entertaining? Is it too much to presume that the presented facts could be trusted?
There is this growing tug of war between ratings, commercials, and journalism; and because of these ever-increasing tensions, the mass media are immutably vulnerable to manipulation, with journalistic values taking a hit on all sides. On a slow news day, even the most ordinary of stories can be subject to gross exaggerations, and as the story is retold over the next few days there may be more and more drama in the telling, even if the story is not true.
By example, last July, Alan Dershowitz wrote an article in which he repeated some disputed facts about Doctors Without Borders which had been printed in the Israeli daily Haaretz. Should we blame Dershowitz for repeating supposedly faulty information reported in a reputable newspaper, or is it excusable? Unfortunately, the conflicting sides to this story reveal a flaw in the new face of journalism that reflects badly on both.
In November, just before President Obama left for his trip to Asia, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman stated on CNN that the cost of the trip would be $200 million a day and would involve the deployment of 34 Navy ships. It wasn’t long before the propaganda machine picked up that information and ran with it, while Anderson Cooper went to work trying to verify the story, which turned out to be completely made up. Supposedly, it came from a newspaper in India, but no one can verify that either. Cooper understood that it was not his job to defend the administration, but as a journalist, it was his job to find the truth, especially since the accusations were made on his TV show. We need more Anderson Coopers.
This is the era of instant information - from TV, online newspapers, blogs, even radio and TV programs tied to a biased point of view. It appears that exaggeration of every kind has become integrated into this evolved journalism, and news programming has become a dramatic art form. Often our journalistic system seems like a machine for the delivery of propaganda, with stories blown out of proportion and gross distortions of the facts. This kind of journalism threatens our traditional notion of democracy.
If we want to make informed decisions, we must demand a press that delivers information we can believe in. Otherwise, we, the people, will be the losers.
