With great privilege comes great responsibility. I remember hearing this almost weekly growing up. I heard it over and over again in my college journalism classes. The mantra was pounded into our heads as we turned in story after story, only to have them handed back with a red ink note – “Too much of your own opinion and bias” or “Remember this is a news piece not opinion.” That was only a generation ago. This is a long forgotten mantra when it comes to modern day journalism.
The latest kerfuffle over the White House press briefings brought this squarely to mind.
I saw the erosion of the journalistic understanding of responsibility toward fair, equitable, unbiased reporting starting in a small local news room around the turn of the century. I was just a news crew hack (part time, jack of all trades: camera this week, floor director next, fill-in sports guy the next) but I was not blind to the editorial decisions made every day. With only 17 minutes for the ‘news’, 90 seconds at a time, daily decisions had to be made regarding what would air and not air. The gatekeeper’s worldview stood front and center as she focused the viewer’s eyes and ears on her version the ‘news’.
Bias was subtle back then, labeling someone as ‘religious’ or ‘angry’ in one piece and someone else as ‘spiritual’ or ‘frustrated’ in another, depending on how judgemental or empathetic she wanted the viewer to be. Over time I noticed what got ‘trimmed’ due to ‘time constraints’ tended to be more from one side of the ideological spectrum than the other. Some voices were deemed more important, more worthy of air time, than others depending on whose side the gatekeeper tended to resonate with. Oh, don’t get me wrong, ‘those people’ were thrown a bone every once in a while on a personal interest bit, if it was a slow news day.
Back in those days one could still hear the rumbling of FCC guidelines about ‘equal time’ for positions and perspectives (especially political) in our newsroom. Sometimes in the wrestle over barely-breathing, journalistic integrity both ‘sides’ lost when an entire package was iced because of one perspective ‘too dangerous’ to air. It was never overt or blatant. No one ever stood and announced, ‘This perspective is too (fill in the blank), so we’re going to cut the piece”. Recognition of the ‘message control’ came in a simple question after the newscast, “Where did that little sound bite go?” To which came simple response, “Squeezed for time. We edited it out.”
Words are powerful. One doesn’t need to edit things out to shape the messaging. (A perfect example of what I’m writing about is I originally started the last sentence with ‘Sadly’, but realized it was a leading word, one intended to cause you to think in one direction. So I chose another.) The gatekeepers in our newsroom (reporters, camera operators, editors, news director) simply wanted to ‘inform’ the public through their way of framing the stories.
That’s fine for some sources of information, but not with ‘news’. News needs almost ‘surgeon like’ recollection of details surrounding events. It’s not interpretation and speculation. It is not the event filtered through all my pre-defined assumptions, judgments, stereotypes, and worldview.
In light of this, exceptional delivery of the news is really hard. We all bring the aforementioned list to the table. Regardless, exceptional news requires a level of maturity, self-awareness, and intellectual integrity severely lacking in journalism today.
Just because you don’t like or are uncomfortable with someone’s opinion, does not equate to them being wrong (or the devil, or a racist, or sexist, or a capitalist pig, or…). Yes, there are opinions we can deem ‘wrong’ on a near universal level, but these opinions are much fewer than you might think.
Simple example:
- Opinion #1 – Abortion is the right of every woman.
- Opinion #2 – Abortion is murder of an innocent life.
Which opinion is ‘right’? Science can’t answer that. Nor medicine. Psychology? Nope. Politics? Absolutely not. ‘Right’, in this case, is an opinion. No amount of arguing or name calling can change that.
So, let’s just imagine I’m a hard news journalist on the ‘Pro-Choice’ side of this issue (Side-note lathered in sarcasm: Isn’t it so fun to label each other and assign people we don’t know in the least to a ideological camp. That behavior is the root of our global relational problems.) I get assigned to a Pro-Life event in my area. How do I cover it with journalistic integrity?
Simple starting checklist (by no means exhaustive):
- Possess a keen awareness of my personal bias and emotional positions regarding the issue
- Notice words, phrases, and images capturing my focus (our brains gravitate toward things aligning with our current beliefs/worldview)
- Approach the topic as if there is some redeeming value for those attending and get curious about what that is
- Watch the language I choose when writing, the perspective of the images I capture, the tone and nature of questions I ask
- Ask: Am I leading people where I want them to go or am I truly taking in what is actually happening and being led to where this story is?
- Ask: Is my current experience informing my current perspective or is my past experience informing my current perspective?
This kind of self-awareness and integrity in reporting rarely exists it seems. But news reporting without these aspects (and I’m sure others as well) creates ‘Fake News’. Fake news is news reporting that fails to maintain journalistic integrity. Fake news imposes my intellectual will and biases on events. Fake news goes to the southern border of the US next to a border fence and asks, ‘Where’s the invasion of immigrants? All’s quiet on the Southern Front.” Fake news calls the White House Press Secretary a ‘liar’. One headline of an international news org read – “How Sarah Sanders became Trump’s liar-in-chief.” Fake news doesn’t compare apples to apples when it comes to politicians, community leaders, corporate CEOs, etc.
I read four articles regarding the lack of White House press briefings. Three of them were categorized as ‘news’, one as opinion. You couldn’t tell the difference. Below are a couple examples. Can tell opinion from ‘news’?
When Spicer was replaced by Sarah Sanders, the ship steadied, even though the falsehoods and acrimonious exchanges did not.
– Guardian, Dec. 31, 2018
The president’s ego is too big to allow the White House press secretary to tell the truth.
– Washington Post, January 23, 2019
Frankly, many reporters with privileged access to White House press briefings did not report with journalistic integrity. They entered the room ready for a fight, ready to frame any information as lies and deceit. They wanted the privilege without the necessary journalistic responsibility.
From the outset of his presidency, many reporters were disgusted Donald Trump won the election. They had galvanized beliefs about who he was. Nothing he could do or say could change that. To them, he was reviled, worthy of disdain. A 2017 study showed over 90% of the media coverage of President Trump had been negative. That study’s findings alone is enough to demonstrate a lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to reporting the ‘news’ surrounding the President of the United States and the White House press briefings. The same media took a slightly (wink, wink) different (and equally inaccurate) approach with his predecessor:
“In a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”
Newsweek – ‘The Second Coming” cover article, January 19, 2013
The treatment of both presidents was hyperbole, not based in facts, and frankly not ‘news’. Regrettably, what passes as ‘news’ today is, in large part, disgraceful by any standards of the principles of accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality and integrity as expressed through the Journalistic Standards and Practices. Ironically, media outlets like Warner Media post online policies regarding journalistic standards but have no active enforcement. Warner Media’s piece on ‘journalistic integrity’ is itself a propaganda piece, based on fantasy, pitting their approach to news against others.
Much of popular journalism today comes with a political or ideological slant: it aims to win people to a point of view, not necessarily to an understanding of the facts. CNN does not try to appeal to a specific point of view or political constituency. To the contrary, the reporters, producers, editors and writers at CNN aim for comprehensive journalism. In their news coverage, they strive to present the whole story, fairly and completely, so that readers and viewers may come to their own conclusions. And in their presentation of opinion and analysis, they strive to represent a range of viewpoints.
Warner Media – Journalistic Integrity Guidelines
Frankly, to compare this ‘policy piece’ to the actual day-to-day actions of media across the political spectrum is laughable. It is the rare newsperson today who effectively, consistently, day after day sticks to the ‘good ole’ standards of accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality and journalistic integrity free of personal bias and passionate opinion. In its place is hyper-biased, narrow-minded, polarizing activism. Today’s journalists are not innocent victims to the ‘Fake News’ label.
Regrettably, although only a few of the reporters in the White House press corps were consistently belligerent, disrespectful, and determined to tell a one-sided narrative, those who were lacked the maturity and clear thinking to respect the privilege of their honored position. With immature, selfish choices come childlike consequences. The resulting tantrum reminds me of a teenager who abused their driving privileges and, justifiably, loses the right to the car, hollering, “Oh, yah!? The reason I was reckless is…is… you don’t let me drive enough! You can’t tell me how to drive. You’re the bad driver!! Now I’ll never learn to drive. I hate you!” Sad sight.
With great privilege comes great responsibility.
Changing Our Trajectory 
Leave a comment