Journalists today have an affinity for being centrists and appearing unbiased. While it’s important for a reporter to be unbiased in what he or she reports, it’s more important for them to explain the backstory behind these reports, show what evidence exists for any claims made in said reports, and finally, use this evidence to debunk or aver such claims. But most reporters just make the first step and simply parrot the talking points of our opposing national parties. Doing so is good for “fairness”, but it does “truth” a disservice.
Suppose one party says “the moon is made of cheese” and the other party argues that this is a ridiculous claim. I don’t think you have to stretch your imagination too far to guess which political party would be more likely to take the position of the former. What would happen on a supposedly neutral media outlet like CNN? Well, Anderson Cooper would do a split screen segment with a strategist from the political party supporting the cheese claim on one side and a member of the opposing party on the other. Both parties would recite the talking points supporting or denying the claim, and then … Cooper would leave it there. That’s it.
Any objective analysis of available evidence would tell you that the cheese enthusiasts are either misinformed, ignorant, or full of shit. An unbiased reporter should not be afraid to call bullshit on bullshit. Everybody knows that Fox News leans to the right and MSNBC leans to the left. But people expect certain media outlets, in particular CNN, to take an objective unbiased stance. When these outlets fail to call bullshit on popular memes and talking points, the public’s expectation of objectivity increases the perceived validity of these statements and allows them to claim a stronger foothold in our collective consciousness than they deserve. Just look how long the “death panel” claim lasted, and continues to last.
Instead, objective media outlets should emulate PolitiFact, the indispensable website that analyzes the validity of statements made by pundits and politicians. In fact, PolitiFact recently named “death panels” the lie of 2009.
Look at this email PolitiFact posted from a reader defending Glenn Beck:
“Why don’t you have more of the ‘left wing’ nut bag pundits on the Truth-O-Meter … Most of these nuts are the ‘right wing’ nuts….makes me get that nagging feeling that you all are being a bit biased?”
I think the MSM fears this type of backlash from “liberal-media” accusing conservatives. If one party is spitting out bullshit more than the other, than the media should call bullshit on that party more often. Unfortunately, journalists are more concerned with their status as unbiased centrists than getting the truth out to the public.
BTW, it’s possible that I’ve heard the “moon is made of cheese” line before as an example in describing this problem, but I can’t quite place it. If so, I apologize for not linking to its source. I know that Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at NYU has on many occasions described these journalists as members of “The Church of the Savvy”.
The Moon Is Made of Cheese Journalism
Journalists today have an affinity for being centrists and appearing unbiased. While it’s important for a reporter to be unbiased in what he or she reports, it’s more important for them to explain the backstory behind these reports, show what evidence exists for any claims made in said reports, and finally, use this evidence to debunk or aver such claims. But most reporters just make the first step and simply parrot the talking points of our opposing national parties. Doing so is good for “fairness”, but it does “truth” a disservice.
Suppose one party says “the moon is made of cheese” and the other party argues that this is a ridiculous claim. I don’t think you have to stretch your imagination too far to guess which political party would be more likely to take the position of the former. What would happen on a supposedly neutral media outlet like CNN? Well, Anderson Cooper would do a split screen segment with a strategist from the political party supporting the cheese claim on one side and a member of the opposing party on the other. Both parties would recite the talking points supporting or denying the claim, and then … Cooper would leave it there. That’s it.
Any objective analysis of available evidence would tell you that the cheese enthusiasts are either misinformed, ignorant, or full of shit. An unbiased reporter should not be afraid to call bullshit on bullshit. Everybody knows that Fox News leans to the right and MSNBC leans to the left. But people expect certain media outlets, in particular CNN, to take an objective unbiased stance. When these outlets fail to call bullshit on popular memes and talking points, the public’s expectation of objectivity increases the perceived validity of these statements and allows them to claim a stronger foothold in our collective consciousness than they deserve. Just look how long the “death panel” claim lasted, and continues to last.
Instead, objective media outlets should emulate PolitiFact, the indispensable website that analyzes the validity of statements made by pundits and politicians. In fact, PolitiFact recently named “death panels” the lie of 2009.
Look at this email PolitiFact posted from a reader defending Glenn Beck:
I think the MSM fears this type of backlash from “liberal-media” accusing conservatives. If one party is spitting out bullshit more than the other, than the media should call bullshit on that party more often. Unfortunately, journalists are more concerned with their status as unbiased centrists than getting the truth out to the public.
BTW, it’s possible that I’ve heard the “moon is made of cheese” line before as an example in describing this problem, but I can’t quite place it. If so, I apologize for not linking to its source. I know that Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at NYU has on many occasions described these journalists as members of “The Church of the Savvy”.