ONE NEWS AS POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ACTIVISM
WHAT DO WE mean by a âfree press,â âpress,â or âfreedom of the pressâ?
What is the purpose of a free press? Is it to report information?
What kind of information? Is it to interpret or analyze information?
What is âthe newsâ? How are decisions made about what is newsworthy and what is not?
What is a ânews organizationâ? One person (a blogger), a group of people (a weekly newspaper), a corporate conglomerate (a television network)?
What is a âjournalistâ? What qualifies someone as a journalist? Experience, education, position, self-identification?
What is the job of a journalist? Is journalism a profession?
Are there standards?
Are journalists able to be âfairâ or âobjectiveâ?
What is the purpose of reporting? To reinforce the founding and fundamental principles of the republic? To challenge public officials and authority? To give voice to certain individuals, groups, and causes? To influence politics and policy? To alter the status quo of a society? To promote âthe common goodâ of the community?
What is the common good? Who decides?
What is the difference between freedom of the press and âfree speechâ? And does the current media revolution, spurred by technological advances such as the internet and social media, change any of this?
Do these questions even matter anymore to news outlets? The questions are rarely asked today let alone rationally discussed. They are infrequently the subject of open or public media circumspection or focused and sustained national debate. It seems âthe mediaâ are loath to investigate or explore âthe media.â However, when the conduct of the media is questioned as biased, politically partisan, or otherwise irresponsible, they insist that they are of one mission: fidelity to the news and all that stems from itâprotecting society from autocratic government, defending freedom of the press, and contributing to societal civility and justice. Moreover, they typically claim to pursue and report the news free from any personal or political agenda.
Is that true of the modern media?
More than seventy years ago, there was a serious self-examination of the media. The Commission on Freedom of the Press (also known as the Hutchins Commission) was organized in 1942 by Time and Life magazine publisher Henry Luce to explore whether freedom of the press was in danger and the proper function of the media in a modern democracy. Its report was issued in 1947 and concluded, in part, that freedom of the press was indeed in danger, and for three basic reasons: âFirst, the importance of the press to the people has greatly increased with the development of the press as an instrument of mass communication. At the same time the development of the press as an instrument of mass communication has greatly decreased the proportion of the people who can express their opinions and ideas through the press. Second, the few who are able to use the machinery of the press as an instrument of mass communication have not provided a service adequate to the needs of the society. Third, those who direct the machinery of the press have engaged from time to time in practices which the society condemns and which, if continued, it will inevitably undertake to regulate or control.â1
The commission warned: âThe modern press itself is a new phenomenon. Its typical unit is the great agency of mass communication. These agencies can facilitate thought and discussion. They can stifle it. They can advance the progress of civilization or they can thwart it. They can debase and vulgarize mankind. They can endanger the peace of the world; they can do so accidentally, in a fit of absence of mind. They can play up or down the news and its significance, foster and feed emotions, create complacent fictions and blind spots, misuse the great words, and uphold empty slogans. Their scope and power are increasing every day as new instruments become available to them. These instruments can spread lies faster and farther than our forefathers dreamed when they enshrined the freedom of the press in the First Amendment to our Constitution.â2
The commission cautioned that â[w]ith the means of self-destruction that are now at their disposal, men must live, if they are to live at all, by self-restraint, moderation, and mutual understanding. They get their picture of one another through the press. The press can be inflammatory, sensational, and irresponsible. If it is, it and its freedom will go down in the universal catastrophe. On the other hand, the press can do its duty by the new world that is struggling to be born. It can help create a world community by giving men everywhere knowledge of the world and of one another, by promoting comprehension and appreciation of the goals of a free society that shall embrace all men.â3
Is this how the modern media conduct themselves? Self-restrained, measured, and temperate? Are the media providing knowledge and insight useful to the public and a free society, or are they obsessed with their own personal, political, and progressive predilections and piques? Have the media earned the respect and esteem of their readers, viewers, and listeners as fair and reliable purveyors of information, or are large numbers of the citizenry suspicious and distrustful of their reporting? Are the media on a trajectory of self-destruction, unofficially identifying with one political party (Democratic Party) over the other (Republican Party)?
In point of fact, most newsrooms and journalists have done a very poor job of upholding the tenets of their profession and, ultimately, have done severe damage to press freedom. Many millions of Americans do not respect them or trust them as credible, fair-minded, and unbiased news sources.
For example, on October 12, 2018, Gallup reported: âRepublicans have typically placed less trust in the media than independents and especially Democrats, but the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. The current 55-percentage-point gap is among the largest to date, along with last yearâs 58-point gap. President Donald Trumpâs attacks on the âmainstream mediaâ are likely a factor in the increasingly polarized views of the media. Republicans agree with his assertions that the media unfairly cover his administration, while Democrats may see the media as the institution primarily checking the presidentâs power.â4
Furthermore, âDemocratsâ trust surged last year and is now at 76%, the highest in Gallupâs trend by party, based on available data since 1997. Independentsâ trust in the media is now at 42%, the highest for that group since 2005. Republicans continue to lag well behind the other party groupsâjust 21% trust the mediaâbut that is up from 14% in 2016 and last year.â5 Another way to look at these statistics is that nearly 80 percent of Republicans distrust the media, while nearly 80 percent of Democrats trust the media. This would seem to underscore the close ideological and political association and tracking between Democrats and the press.
Lara Logan, who was a CBS News journalist and war correspondent from 2002 to 2018, spoke frankly in a February 15, 2019, podcast interview about the mediaâs professional demise, preference for the Democratic Party and progressive advocacy, and intolerance of independent and diverse perspectives in reporting. âVisuallyâanyone whoâs ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray and the rest of the wall is for the men. To me thatâs a great representation of the American media, is that, you know, in this tiny little corner where the women pray, youâve got Breitbart and Fox News and, you know, a few others. And then from thatâfrom there on you have CBS, ABC, NBC, âHuffington Post,â Politico, whatever, right, all of them. And thatâs a problem for me. Because even if it was reversed, if it was, you know, vastlyâmostly, you know, rightâon the right and a little bit, that would also be a problem for me. What Iâmy experience has been that the moreâthe more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life, everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right. Nothing is black and white.â6
Logan continued that this is not about politics or partisanship to her. It is not about pro-Trump or anti-Trump. It is about news reporting. âItâs got nothing to do with whether I like Trump or I donât like Trump. Right? Or whether I believe him or identify with him, donât. Whatever. I donât even want to have that conversation because I approach that the same way I approach anything. I find that is not a popular way to work in the media today because although the media has always been historically left-leaning, weâve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today.⊠The former executive editor of the New York Times has a book coming out, Jill Abramson. And she says, âWe would do, I donât know, dozens of stories about Trump every single day and every single one of them was negative.â Abramson said, âWe have become the anti-Trump paper of record.â Well, thatâs not our job. Thatâs a political position. That means weâve become political activists in a sense. And some could argue, propagandists, right? And thereâs some merit to that. We have a few conventionsâbecause they are not really rulesâbut you need at least two firsthand sources for something, right? Those things help keep your work to a certain standard. Those standards are out the window. I mean, you read one story or another and hear it and itâs all based on one anonymous administration official, former administration official. Thatâs not journalism.âŠâ7
When a journalist breaks from the rest of the media pack, which is quite rare, their careers are typically threatened or ruined by the rest of the press. Indeed, after the Logan interview went viral, she was ostracized or worse, personally attacked by individuals in her own profession. In a subsequent interview on Foxâs Hannity, Logan related that âif there were any independent voices out there, any journalists who are not beating the same drum and giving the same talking points, then we pay the price. What is interesting⊠they cannot take down the substance of what youâre saying. They cannot go after the things that matter. So they smear you personally. They go after your integrity. They tear after your reputation as a person and a professional. They will stop at nothing. I am not the only one. And I am just, I am done, right, I am tired of it. And they do not get to write my story anymore. They do not get to speak for me. I want to say loudly and clearly to anybody who is listening, I am not owned. Nobody owns me. Iâm not owned by the left or the right.â8
Indeed, the Commission on Freedom of the Press had specifically emphasized that the media must pay special attention to the difference between fact and opinion. âOf equal importance with reportorial accuracy are the identification of fact as fact and opinion as opinion, and their separation, so far as possible. This is necessary all the way from the reporterâs file, up through the copy and makeup desks and editorial offices, to the final, published product. The distinction cannot, of course, be made absolute. There is not fact without a context and no factual report which is uncolored by the opinions of the reporter. But modern conditions require greater effort than ever to make the distinction between fact and opinion.âŠâ9
Having ignored the blaring warning of the commission, the media have knowingly commingled fact and opinion and have, in fact, regularly taken up the policies and causes of the Democratic Party. Consequently, the publicâs attitude toward the modern media is divided largely along ideological and party lines.
In January 2018, Knight FoundationâGallup published its survey of 19,000 U.S. adults. It found that âAmericans believe that the media have an important role to play in our democracyâyet they donât see that role being fulfilled.â10 âEighty-four percent of Americans believe the news media have a critical or very important role to play in democracy, particularly in terms of informing the publicâyet they donât see that role being fulfilled and less than half (44 percent) can name an objective news source.â11
As in the Gallup survey, analysts found that â[w]hile the majority of Americans clearly recognized the importance of media in a democracy, there were clear differences between Democrats and Republicans in their views of the media. While 54 percent of Democrats have a very or somewhat favorable opinion of the media, 68 percent of Republicans view the news media in an unfavorable light.â12
âDemocrats,â Gallup reported, âlargely trust the media and Republicans largely distrust it. The divergence based on political affiliation was also seen in perceptions of bias in the news. Forty-five percent of Americans say there is a âa great dealâ of political bias in news coverage (up from 25 percent in 1989); 67 percent of Republicans say they see âa great dealâ of political bias in the news, versus only 26 percent of Democrats.â13
As will become clear, the perceptions revealed in these surveys are realities, and the evidence is overwhelming that journalists as a group reject, in one form or another, the commissionâs admonition that reporters should strive to separate fact from opinion; rather, in varying ways and to different degrees, they embrace the idea of news âinterpretationâ or news âanalysisâ in the selection, gathering, and reporting of news, influenced by and filtered through the progressive mentality.
While there is much more to the commissionâs report, its closing summary is especially noteworthy: âThe character of the service required of the American press by the American people differs from the service previously demanded, first, in thisâthat it is essential to the operation of the economy and to the government of the Republic. Second, it is a service of greatly increased responsibilities both as to the quantity and as to the quality of the information required. In terms of quantity, the information about themselves and about their world made available to the American people must be as extensive as the range of their interests and concerns as citizens of the self-governing, industrialized community in the closely integrated modern world. In terms of quality, the information provided must be provided in such a form, and with so scrupulous a regard for the wholeness of the truth and the fairness of its presentation, that the American people may make for themselves, by the exercise of reason and of conscience, the fundamental decisions necessary to the direction of their governme...