AlterNet
CBS 60 Minutes' piece on Lou Dobbs last night told us a lot more about traditional journalism's biases than it did Dobbs' on any given issue he covers. Throughout the interview, CBS correspondent Leslie Stahl (who I actually think is quite a decent reporter) seems appalled at the entire concept of "advocacy" journalism, essentially asserting that a reporter having any opinion whatsoever offends the Principles of Journalism sent down from Mt. Olympus. Not only does her surprise display a stunning lack of basic education about the history of the very journalism profession she works in (Leslie - please google the terms "muckraker" and "penny press"), her own 60 Minutes piece about Dobbs displays her own very subjective opinions. The only difference is that while Dobbs is honest and admits to his biases, Stahl - and other traditional journalists - mask their very subjective world views in the veneer of objectivity, making their own advocacy far more devious than Dobbs could ever be.
Take, for instance, this line in the 60 Minutes piece, delivered as an authoritative, nonpartisan, objective fact:
"Dobbs is full of contradictions: he’s pro-abortion rights, but against gun control; a fiscal conservative who supports government regulation."
Stahl would have us believe that believing the consistent libertarianism inherent in the dual beliefs that government shouldn't dictate decisions between a woman and her doctor nor decisions about who should own a gun is a "contradiction." She would also have us believe that being a fiscal conservative (aka. for less government spending and balanced budgets) is a "contradiction" for someone who supports government regulation (aka. consumer protections, environmental laws, etc.). She offers no proof of these claims. Factually, of course, they are absurd, meaning at best such claims are Stahl's own (very odd) opinions. Yet, her opinion is portrayed as non-partisan objective fact akin to stating that water is wet.
Same thing with the entire frame of the piece. Stahl decides to focus almost the entire piece on Dobbs' crusade against illegal immigration, to the exclusion of the other major issues Dobbs covers, such as free trade, job outsourcing, corporate crime and America's narcotics problem. While it is certainly true that illegal immigration has been an important and controversial issue for Dobbs, Stahl would have us believe that is the only thing Dobbs really covers, when in fact one of the most important stories about the rise of Lou Dobbs Tonight is its position as the only show on corporate-owned television that consistently questions Corporate America on a whole host of economic issues. But because that's not what's interesting in Stahl's personal opinion (or, perhaps, that's not a topic area that's looked on kindly at the Viacom-owned CBS network), the 60 Minutes piece is framed narrowly to create a distorted picture.
This Great Objectivity Scam - the assumption that traditional reporting is automatically "objective" while advocacy journalism is automatically not - joins other omniscient and equally dishonest Establishment-backed assumptions like the Great Education Myth and the Great Labor Shortage Lie that I have written about in the past. In the same way we all laugh at Fox News's claim to being "fair and balanced," we all know that there simply is no such thing as real "objectivity" - even in the highest echelons of Establishment journalism. From the moment a writer starts reporting a story, their subjective opinions on what is and is not important are affecting their stories.
So, is the solution open and honest opinions and bias? This guy doesn't think so.
Comments:
What would you rather?
Posted by: particle on May 7, 2007 10:17 AM
"Would you rather get your news from those who admit their biases or those who claim they have none?"
Actually I'd rather get my news from those who admit their biases but are more interested in advancing professional rigor than in advancing an agenda. You know getting at the truth of a matter regardless of whether it flies in the face of one's hobby horse. Reality can be interesting too.
Sure sounds appealing, but is professional rigor defined? By whom? The truth is modified by omissions and choice of word. An open handed approach like Lou Dobbs may well better ensure the public knows the difference between opinion and news.
What does another journalist think?
There are constraints
Posted by: Jesse on May 7, 2007 12:49 PM
and they aren't just the corporate ownership of media. One of the things you learn as a reporter (I am one) is that you seek out stories where there's a narrative. That is, a kind of from-here-to-there story you can tell. That automatically biases what you do.
Let's give an example: I could write a long essay on the causes of crime in the streets of Washington DC, but my editor would nix it. There has to be a story to hang it on. The news peg, as it is known, tends to favor the "if it bleeds it leads" kind of stuff.
It isn't that peope are lazy. It's just that constructing a story around complicated issues is hard to do. Laziness per se is not the problem here--not everybody has David Halberstam's talent. Just as with any other profession, most people aren't that good, but they aren't that bad either. Just average guys trying to make a living.
I can't think of a better argument to open up opinion within news. Details are plucked for presentation, there is no interest in getting the facts out, just grabbing the ratings. I think Lou has it right. I just don't listen to him. He is constantly promoting himself and his book. I'd rather get some news.
No comments:
Post a Comment