The sorry mess of the media

Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times' mea-culpa specialist, is a strange duck. For some time now he has written less as a liberal commentator and more as a media referee, pointing out personal fouls here and there and blowing the whistle on those he believes are playing without gentlemanly poise.

For example, he recently importuned liberals – yes, liberals – to tone down their anti-administration rhetoric, which seems like asking the FDA to go easy on drug companies. We were becoming too strident, said Mr. Kristof, with Bush-bashing now resembling the Clinton-bashing of yesteryears.

The gist of the time-out criticism seemed to be that “bashing” in itself was foul play, regardless of the bashing’s merits. Hence it is just as unseemly to mercilessly bash Bush for scheming to destroy Social Security as it was to vilify Clinton for ordering a hit on Vince Foster.

The fact that the latter was nothing more than a vicious fantasy and the former is a substantiated fact didn’t appear to make much difference to Kristof. Just play nicely, he admonished, which means being respectful even of outrageously disrespectful, in-your-face right-wing proposals designed to plutocratize America (and if “plutocratize” isn’t a real word, it should be).

Now comes Kristof reeling from a Pew Research Center study that reports “confidence in the press has fallen sharply since 1990.” He surmises that the cause is a public perception of journalistic “arrogance,” though he protests the perception as “grossly unfair.”

Nevertheless, Kristof proposes the undeniable, which is that “print, radio and television all need to take much bolder steps to reconnect with the public.” And here’s one of the steps he suggests that journalism should take: “hire more red state evangelicals,” which would increase “our understanding of and ability to cover America today.”

Yes, that’s what he said, making the analogy that “when America was struck by race riots in the late 1960's, major news organizations realized too late that their failure to hire black reporters had impaired their ability to cover America.” 

I can only conclude that if violent biker gangs began ravaging America’s countryside and this came as unexpected news to major media, Kristof, then, would lament the past underhiring of violent-biker journalists. So it might be wise to cover one’s bases and start hiring red-state, evangelical violent bikers.

But here’s another thought, one perhaps a bit more down to earth, that Kristof never entertains. He doesn’t acknowledge that the public’s sharply falling confidence in the media since 1990 correlates with the media’s extraordinary efforts to shed the “liberal” label – to go out of their way to prove their objectivity and balance by treating their conservative-accusers’ camp with kidd gloves and blistering liberalism at every turn; to balance perceived past sins by unbalancing the present’s reality.

The practical effect has been that of the media acting as a p.r. outlet for conservatism. Don’t, for heaven’s sake, one can hear publishers and editors crying, dissect conservatives’ press releases and press conferences and report on inconsistencies and outright falsehoods. That paints us as liberal. 

Maybe the public is both sick and tired of it. Maybe the public only wants honest reporting above timorous, robotic and artificially balanced reporting.

A brutally honest approach would often skewer conservative pols and probably just as often skewer liberal ones. Good. Let the chips fall where they may. And if the public tunes out or puts the paper down because it perceives bias, as so many media execs fear, then the public will get the democracy it deserves – a dead one.

But at least the media won’t have conspired to play a phony balancing game; they may regain a little self-respect in the process; they may actually strengthen democracy’s health; and who knows, maybe the public would even rebuild some confidence in the whole sorry business.

Comments

[Maezeppa]

The insidious thing about Prozac is that it gives people the ability to cope with the unacceptable. Yes, other things also function to do the same thing but Kristoff has all the earmarks of being on some kind of psychotropic.

[Keith Webster]

Well said! Conservative hooey is never called on, and there is frequently a fake
"balance" forced onto stories when none is called for. Just because a story may make a conservative look bad, does not mean it is a bad story. The media has been abused by the bullies of the right for decades now, and flinches when the right even glances at them. Hardly a hand has to be raised anymore. The abhorrent cycle of abuse is complete.

[Don]

Great column.
You should email Nick at

nicholas@nytimes.com

I did.

[Arvin Hill]

Please indulge me this Simpsons reference in which Springfield news anchor Kent Brockman interrupts for a bulletin:

"Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we've just lost the picture, but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over- 'conquered' if you will- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthman or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here."

"And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."

This about sums up not only the news media, but our chronically accommodationist Dems.

[Mike Frassetto]

This is all academic. NBC is owned by GE. Disney owns ABC. CNN is getting to be worse then FOX. And Fox...well, let's not waste words. Having allowed every television outlet to be bought by Republicans, we get what we deserve, propaganda. I believe it has very little to do with "showing balance". That's just an excuse to allow them to tow the republican party line. I would encourage everyone of a liberal bent to boycott these news programs. Don't watch them and don't appear as a guest to be ridiculed on them. Get your news on the internet until real news appears on television. Some people have complained that the media had a liberal bias. There is a large difference between appearing to have a liberal bias and being paid to have a conservative bias. If you are too lazy to work to get correct information, then you deserve the country you will get. All of this has nothing to do with idealogy, Nothing! It is the same old story. The rich want to have all of the power. Antiaboritonism, antigovernment, state's rights, antiterrorism, etc, are all just ways to get people of limited intelligence to allow the wealthy to have that power. The fact that they don't follow these "guiding principles" once in power (except the taxes, of course) shows how serious they are about them. These ploys are all necessary in a democracy. It is a measure of how intelligent we are that it has happened. That the ploys are so transparent and poorly executed that even a casual watcher can see them happening, determine the motive, and see the hypocrisy of those involved is a measure of our self centeredness. Most of us aren't watching and just to make sure their covered, they've bought all of the media outlets that are easy to access.

[Rich]

I just did a post on "fair" VERSUS "balanced", meaning NO, they're not the same thing, nor can you always have both. Sometimes you have to choose and in those cases, you're usually better off choosing fairness.
Balance turns out to be the reporter saying "A pox on both your houses! You're equally guilty/innocent! You're equally at fault/to blame."
This results in extremely poor journalism that fails to really enlighten people as to what's going on.

[JoAnne Krieger]

Who knows what's going on behind the scenes with writers..and political candidates. Eason Jordon of CNN, for example, back-tracked on his "leak" regarding the targeting of reporters by U.S. troops. Doug Wead, Bush's old buddy did a mea culpa after he reported on Bush's apparent drug escapades. And then there's John Kerry's disappearing act the day after the night before. Mike (above) however has a good point. The big corporates, I understand, scarfed up the outlets to control any negative news of their dirty work as much as their desire for a profit from the outlets themselves. "Orwell Rolls in His Grave", a very good documentary, concludes that the only story the media won't cover is the one about itself. So now that the blogs are holding MSM's feet to the fire, maybe the "suits" got to Kristof in order to attempt to lessen the pressure on Bush, the hand that at least indirectly feeds them. Fear is a big motivator.