I've seen several reports recently where the mainstream media/journalism industry has been grading itself.
Generally, within these reports, the negative perspective many news consumers (you and me) have of the media/journalism industry is dutifully recognized. However - and not surprisingly - journalists give themselves higher marks than they give the public they're ostensibly serving. They can't bear to fault themselves for these negative perspectives many of us news consumers hold of them.
Although multiple studies have found that few Americans "trust" the news media anymore, reporters insist with straight faces that they present important facts. So why won't news consumers trust journalists? Especially mainstream ones?
Generally, within these reports, the negative perspective many news consumers (you and me) have of the media/journalism industry is dutifully recognized. However - and not surprisingly - journalists give themselves higher marks than they give the public they're ostensibly serving. They can't bear to fault themselves for these negative perspectives many of us news consumers hold of them.
Although multiple studies have found that few Americans "trust" the news media anymore, reporters insist with straight faces that they present important facts. So why won't news consumers trust journalists? Especially mainstream ones?
Some of the problem originates with journalism schools, which for decades now have quietly operated under the noble duty of grooming legions of reporters, broadcasters - and now digital correspondents - to advocate for the underdog, the marginalized, and the oppressed. Does that surprise you? Well, you're not the only one! I've even seen a couple of studies recently in which journalists have been apparently stunned to learn that many Americans expect our news media to report the news regardless of how it affects minorities, poor people, or any other special interest group.
In other words, journalists don't see themselves as having the same job description the general public has for them. Which is a good recipe for miscommunication, right?
In other words, journalists don't see themselves as having the same job description the general public has for them. Which is a good recipe for miscommunication, right?
Now, maybe having a group of people trying to teach the public to be empathetic isn't a bad thing. Reminding all of us that genuine differences exist between ourselves, and we need to be respectful and kind and helpful to others: Who can argue against that? Yet it mostly helps to explain why there's a growing disconnect between media and consumers. If they want a morality lesson, most consumers will turn to their religious leaders (or worse, their favored politicians). We turn to journalists for a listing of the day's events.
Unfortunately, when it comes to what we define as news, things get even more complicated.
Generally, "news" can be defined as something that is extraordinary. Ordinary, everyday events may impact our lives, but in the news industry, ordinary events don't sell advertising space. And the extraordinary is usually extreme, right? However, with our media presenting so many extremes, have we all internalized those extremes as being more common than they really are? Has it warped our perception of literal reality? It goes back to something I noticed recently about the emerging awareness of how rare non-fungible tokens can actually imperil their own value. The constant pursuit of the marginal, the fringe, the rare, or the uncommon actually makes the marginal - in the aggregate - more common in terms of dulling an audience's perception of it. Has the media - both from the left and right of the political spectrum - done the same thing with "news"?
Then there's the problem of bias. It's extremely difficult to find any news outlet that isn't biased. Some left-wing and right-wing outlets don't even bother to hide their biases, and often, they let those biases over-rule literal facts. And again, there's this issue of complexity. Very little in life is as simple as we'd like it to be. Unfortunately, within this vacuum of grays, facts can get twisted into "spin", to support the overall perspective of the person or organization marketing the facts to their consumers. Forget the altruistic idealization of facts being neither right nor wrong; any good reporter knows that data is malleable relative to the overall product being sold. The more aggressive journalists are in marketing their overall product, the greater the risks of facts fading from black and white into gray. Hey, right-wingers have their tropes, and so do left-wingers, and tropes have to be fed.
And frankly, in this day and age, that's how many news consumers apparently want it.
Americans have come to love idolizing politics. Religion used to be "the opiate of the masses", but today, politics are the opiate. Political rhetoric gives a quick high. Politics provide an easy way to try and make sense of an increasingly complex, confusing, and frightening world. There have been far more perilous times in world history, but today, the Internet and social media have combined to bombard all of us with sensationalistic information from every corner of the planet. And a lot of that information is inaccurate, or outright false. Trouble is, many people can't be bothered to parse out fact from fiction. Many people are comfortable accepting information that solidifies their perceptions of reality. Very few of us enjoy having our sensibilities and values challenged. We don't seek information that destabilizes what we've already decided is right or wrong.
It's almost ethnocentric for any of us, no matter our political posture, to view our world today as being more dangerous or dreadful than it's ever been before. So what about the Plague, or the Inquisition, or the Dark Ages, or the Holocaust, for example. Sure, bad things are happening all around us - and depending who we are, even to us - but hasn't the human experience on this planet always been that way? Instead, Internet technology gives us the impression that crises imperil us like never before, and we are on the precipice of oblivion. Maybe we are, and maybe we aren't, but simply having to struggle with so much readily-available, demoralizing information isn't the best way to know for sure.
Then there's the problem of bias. It's extremely difficult to find any news outlet that isn't biased. Some left-wing and right-wing outlets don't even bother to hide their biases, and often, they let those biases over-rule literal facts. And again, there's this issue of complexity. Very little in life is as simple as we'd like it to be. Unfortunately, within this vacuum of grays, facts can get twisted into "spin", to support the overall perspective of the person or organization marketing the facts to their consumers. Forget the altruistic idealization of facts being neither right nor wrong; any good reporter knows that data is malleable relative to the overall product being sold. The more aggressive journalists are in marketing their overall product, the greater the risks of facts fading from black and white into gray. Hey, right-wingers have their tropes, and so do left-wingers, and tropes have to be fed.
And frankly, in this day and age, that's how many news consumers apparently want it.
Americans have come to love idolizing politics. Religion used to be "the opiate of the masses", but today, politics are the opiate. Political rhetoric gives a quick high. Politics provide an easy way to try and make sense of an increasingly complex, confusing, and frightening world. There have been far more perilous times in world history, but today, the Internet and social media have combined to bombard all of us with sensationalistic information from every corner of the planet. And a lot of that information is inaccurate, or outright false. Trouble is, many people can't be bothered to parse out fact from fiction. Many people are comfortable accepting information that solidifies their perceptions of reality. Very few of us enjoy having our sensibilities and values challenged. We don't seek information that destabilizes what we've already decided is right or wrong.
It's almost ethnocentric for any of us, no matter our political posture, to view our world today as being more dangerous or dreadful than it's ever been before. So what about the Plague, or the Inquisition, or the Dark Ages, or the Holocaust, for example. Sure, bad things are happening all around us - and depending who we are, even to us - but hasn't the human experience on this planet always been that way? Instead, Internet technology gives us the impression that crises imperil us like never before, and we are on the precipice of oblivion. Maybe we are, and maybe we aren't, but simply having to struggle with so much readily-available, demoralizing information isn't the best way to know for sure.
Unfortunately, Internet technology can broadcast anything of any legitimacy instantly. It can give voice to any opinion (even mine, here), which means it's easier than ever for any crackpot with sufficient charisma to capture attention and build a following. Truth isn't necessary these days. Only the ability to convince. And people who are scared, angry, lustful, prideful, hateful, and jealous tend to be suckers for biases and tropes. Whether we want to admit it or not, we all grapple with self-preservation, which includes our ardent advocacy of what we believe, embrace, value, and desire. Even journalists - people who've intentionally gone into the information business because they get to impact a broader audience - do this.
Nobody goes to journalism school with plans for a career creating ledgers of statistics. No, journalism schools teach students how to capture attentions, spin details, and convince, and manipulate emotions. Hey - I took two college journalism classes. And my take-away was that how information is PACKAGED can be more important than the information itself. Trouble is - partisans on both sides of the political aisle seem OK with this strategy. Few Americans actually are willing to break out of their preferred partisan cocoons and consider broader narratives that complicate what their chosen heroes are saying. And reporters fall into the same trap.
Blaming consumers for not trusting the broader journalism industry is mostly a smokescreen for avoiding this reality. If I could grade the media I once studied in college, I'd give it an "F" - but not for providing facts in an unbiased light.
Nobody goes to journalism school with plans for a career creating ledgers of statistics. No, journalism schools teach students how to capture attentions, spin details, and convince, and manipulate emotions. Hey - I took two college journalism classes. And my take-away was that how information is PACKAGED can be more important than the information itself. Trouble is - partisans on both sides of the political aisle seem OK with this strategy. Few Americans actually are willing to break out of their preferred partisan cocoons and consider broader narratives that complicate what their chosen heroes are saying. And reporters fall into the same trap.
Blaming consumers for not trusting the broader journalism industry is mostly a smokescreen for avoiding this reality. If I could grade the media I once studied in college, I'd give it an "F" - but not for providing facts in an unbiased light.
