Some of you that may know me have heard this story before. I may even have printed it at the Chronicle or here in the early days. If so, it bears repeating. As an undergraduate, I had the pleasure of writing weekly columns for the TCU Daily Skiff. One semester I was selected to the Opinion Editor. As the Opinion Editor, I managed about a dozen different columnists and was primarily responsible for writing the staff editorials each day. As it turned out, I averaged two to three columns per week and wrote the staff editorials for all four editions. That was a ton of writing.
What I remember most was being a member of the editorial board. We discussed what to write about on the staff editorial and what to cover, print, and how to cover it. It was here where I gained a lot of insight into not only how journalists think, but how they are taught to think at the university level. During that semester, a student at my dorm had been accused of sexually assaulting another student in his dorm room. As you might imagine, this was a juicy piece of news for a campus of that size and it was quite the topic during our editorial meeting.
There was no question that it was going to be covered. The question was how. I was usually the lone dissenting vote on these decisions. I was just a political science major they always said. Since I wasn't a journalism major I just didn't understand. What I didn't understand apparently was that newspapers have the right to publish the name and picture of the accused even if he isn't charged. Could always became should in their world. Publishing his name and picture would get us headlines of our own. We would have "the scoop" so to speak. My arguments for restraint fell on deaf ears. I was just the lousy political science major.
I knew the guy, but that wasn't why I argued restraint. He was an ass hole, but being an ass hole isn't against the law. No one bothered to consider what would happen if we were wrong. Well, a few days later the young lady recanted her story and there were never charges levied. To make matters worse, no one knew that the young man in question had an identical twin on campus. It was the true nightmare scenario. As far as I know, there was no apology forthcoming from our paper. It made me embarrassed to be a journalist that day even if I was a mere amateur.
Obviously, you can see quite a few parallels in that story and current events. This would not be the only time that the college paper wielded its "power" and saw that power backfire. It is no wonder why we have seen an increase in these types of events nationally. There used to be three networks. Getting it right was always more important than getting it first. If you were first you had an advantage until another network broke another story first. If you got it wrong you had to work a long time to gain people's trust back. Now, that we have hundreds of papers, thousands of blogs and news sites, and maybe ten major news networks in total you can see how getting it first could be more important. Notoriety is a great seller and that is especially true in this saturated market. It's also easier to forget when people get it wrong. How long will Breitbart be a household name? This time next year he may be able to go back to smearing without most of the public remembering what happened last time.
It is moments like these when I laugh at the notion of a "liberal media bias." Yes, a majority of journalists polled say they have liberal leanings. Sit in on an editorial board meeting and you quickly see what the bias is and it certainly isn't liberal or conservative. Papers, television stations, bloggers, and internet journalists all want the same thing: attention. The common currency is opportunity. Tweet it, blog it, write it, or broadcast it, but make no mistake, we all want it. It is true that we have seen media sub-divide itself on ideological lines, but it has little to do with the ideologies themselves. Even the vaunted Fox News really isn't in it for the ideology. They are seizing on an opportunity to capitalize on a segment of the population. Of course, that segment has money to spend.
We often complain about an uneducated populace, but can we really put all of the blame on them. In a bygone era, a person could read the newspaper and watch one of the networks and be fairly certain they were getting the facts. Now, people in the media (including ourselves) are in such a race to be the first that the facts be damned. So, who does the public trust? Where do they get the facts? We not only have to be discerning of what we see, read, and hear, but we also must be discerning of who is presenting us with what we see, read, and hear. Being an informed citizen today is hard work and some people just don't want to work that hard. This leaves them open to those that not only want to risk being wrong to be first, but don't particularly care whether they are right or wrong. It's one thing to be careless. It's another not to care.
phdis - Instead of complaining about "bias" as you perceive it, how about pointing out where you think Scott is wrong?
Don't misunderstand Mr. Barzilla, I think you and the others who blog here represent yourselves honestly and faithfully. You actually believe what you say, and you do back up your opinions with facts you choose to use. What I am saying is that the members of TDH are not objective nor unbiased nor non-partisan. Thus a person seeking the full story and unvarnished truth cannot rely on your opinions and commentary alone for all the facts of an issue and must seek other sides and views. It is a pity these other opinions are not in evidence here, but no matter, you are all still useful in a certain way.
When you say this blog do you mean me or TDH? I can't speak for everyone here but I think we all do a pretty good job in trying to use facts to back our opinions. Yet we have never made any bones about the fact that we provide commentary. Read if you like. Comment if you like. Yet we have never misrepresented ourselves.
Confirmation bias is everywhere. Editorial boards were just the precursors of the trend. They usually only look as far into an event or issue as it takes to conirm their personal, pre-conceived notions, just look at this blog. Therefore, intelligent people have to look at numerous forms of information today to get a real picture You can't get it from MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC or their polar opposites like Fox. You have to gather all the extremes represented in what passes for journalism today (all biased, opinionated, Op/Ed type material) and make your own examination of the facts and who you trust. A sad commentary on what America's "news" sources has become.
Now I'm going to have that vision stuck in my head.
another good one...
used to be one had to work to twist facts to fit one's narrow ideological window...now the media does it for you.
To be critical and objective is more than just work...it requires a level of self-honesty that is downright uncomfortable. It requires acknowledgement of all of ones faults and flaws...examination of all one's imperfections or prejudices to prevent them from contaminating one's judgement.
How joyous it must be to completely ignore such things and just repeat what one is told by a media that spends more time congratulating their viewers on their moral superiority than actual reporting.
"Journalism" has been replaced with psychological equivelant of a $2 handjob in a bus station restroom...sure feels good, but it's empty of all meaning.
1) Make the story fit your agenda
2) Don't let facts or truth spoil a good story
Sad but true...
A few years ago I was following a daily media blitz on the search for a local serial killer. Rumors abounded and when a local individual fitting the rumor profile was arrested the local newspaper published the story with name and address attached. Too bad for them when it turned out it was the wrong person. They got sued, smeared, and slammed for their irresponsibility. But, it was high drama as it unfolded and nobody seemed to care that the facts were as yet uncorroborated by law enforcement. So were they stupid, careless, innocent victims of the crazed public need for resolution or what?
Incidentally, I never for a second bought into the 'rumor profile'. Pat Brown (if you haven't heard of her is a self-promoting hack profiler) injected herself into the media fray and fed the rumor frenzy and consequently has become a regular on various news shows as a forensic profiler. That in itself is indicative of the media need for 'personality' over expertise.