The big difference...

Continuing commentary on the new survey of American journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: Today's topic: Section 4, Values and the Press.

Earning a college degree places one in an elite class in America. While the bachelors degree may seem ubiquitous today, the percentage of Americans with a college degree hovers around 25 percent. At least since Watergate, the institution of American journalism has all but required a college degree of its practitioners. This means that journalists are different from average Americans.

I don't think there's compelling evidence to suggest that earning a college degree makes one more liberal or more conservative. But I do believe (without evidence) that four years of exposure to critical thinking of the academic sort invasively changes, if only in small and subtle ways, the thinking patterns of most students.

Journalism students (those getting a good education) get a grounding in the liberal arts followed by intensive study of professional practice. Even if the art and science of asking questions is not specifically taught, journalism students come to some understanding of how to ask questions and what to ask about.

Learning to ask critical questions is, as Neil Postman claimed, "dangerous." What he meant by this is that teaching students how to ask questions--and that asking questions is good--leads directly to their "questioning of constituted authority." This is exactly what we teach journalism students to do. And it's any authority they learn to question, including government and religion.

Education is a conservative enterprise in the sense that it attempts to reproduce the status quo. But it is also a decidedly liberal enterprise in the sense that, when practiced well, it teaches students to question authority. And this may be the biggest difference indicated by the education statistic cited above.

That many journalists consider themselves politically liberal or moderate (whatever those terms mean) is nearly meaningless to understanding journalistic behavior or the social and political values of individual journalists. I think the education difference between reporters--nearly all with college degrees--and average Americans--only one in four with a college degree--says much about any differences in social values that exist. Further, with education comes socio-economic differences. Reporters make decent salaries. And the higher they move up the ladder of influence, the greater those salaries grow.

Do not suppose that I am making a smarter-than argument here. Education does a lot of things to students, but making them smarter isn't necessarily one of them. I'd say it's far more certain that a college degree makes graduates think they're smarter, and this leads to certain attitudes and values. The economic success that often follows education adds to this illusion. And I have seen this again and again in my former career as a journalist and subsequently as a critic of journalism: Journalists are prone to seeing themselves as smarter than the public--an attitude I find completely unjustified.

So, it is not surprising to me that, for example, such a high percentage of journalists think it is unnecessary to "believe in God" to be moral. By virtue of their college educations, they have been exposed to (or should have been) philosophy, anthropology, and biology. They have (or should have) learned to be skeptical. This is not to say that education drives out God. Instead, I think it expands one's view of the divinely possible and allows one to resist dogma without guilt--that questioning I mentioned.

That's just one example (perhaps the most incendiary). But you may see the same questioning and skepticism at work in the attitudes of journalists toward any given authority. And this skepticism--what Postman called "the principal mind-set associated with the Enlightenment"--is a classically liberal attitude.

Previous entries:

Complex system
To be good
Information utility and the internet

It's a transactional universe...

In a talk at the University of South Dakota, Allen Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, made this statement: "The biggest criticism of journalism around the world is that journalists are unfair. And generally, when you're unfair, you're inaccurate."

What I am about to write is unfair but not inaccurate. It is unfair because I have not read the entire text of the speech, nor have I experienced it as a member of the intended audience. But it is accurate in the sense that I am qualified to write about such matters, and I am explaining the thinking that supports the following remarks.

Neuharth's statement (even with the "generally" qualification) is an excellent example of a central, but unexamined, assumption about language and writing that characterizes journalistic rhetoric: There exists a word-to-world and world-to-word fit grounded in a correspondence theory of truth (as opposed to an "embodied" theory in which our experience of reality affects our understanding of truth).

Here's the problem: "Fairness" is a political concept; "accuracy," if we agree on the unit of measure, is much less so.

"Fairness" is experienced emotionally. The facts are what they are, but if they are used by others to work against my well-being or political goals, then I may experience them as unfair; accuracy be damned.

There is no state of being that we may all understand or experience as fair. And no amount of facts will change an experience of unfairness into fairness. So what we have here is a situation in which the concept of fairness is as illusionary as the concept of objectivity.

Journalists believe that accuracy leads to fairness. In an objectivist universe, this might be the case. We would all consider the facts, understand them from an objective point of view, and then experience them as fair because our rational minds are in control of our emotions. But because fairness is, instead, an emotionally experienced political concept in a transactional universe (as opposed to objectivist or subjectivist), simply being accurate is no guarantee that readers, sources, and other interested parties will experience fairness in the journalistic product.

Neuharth is quite right that one of the biggest criticisms of the press is that it is unfair. But this is less a criticism of the press and more a criticism of something quite natural: We all experience reality a bit differently because we have different values and interests.

I claim that I will always be fair on Rhetorica. What does that mean? It means simply this: I try, however imperfectly, to examine my assumptions and theories, describe differing positions as accurately as I am able, and invite public critique of my efforts. (It also means I need to edit my About Rhetorica page in light of what I've just written.)

And?...

The morning is very pleasant in Kansas City today. At about 7:30 I took a cup of green tea out to the deck to think. And I spent much of the time thinking about Ronald Reagan.

Fanfare for the (un)common man...

Greg Packer knows what the news media want: "You know, I always come up with an answer for everything, number one. And, and I always give everybody, you know, the respect and the time that they need. I make it very easy for them. I make it accessible..." You may recall that Packer makes a hobby of being quoted as a man-in-the-street source. Rhetorica background on Packer here, here, and here.

Custodian of fact...

I agree with communications scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson that journalism should be the "custodian of fact." This means that journalists should get to the bottom of factual disputes rather than simply allow sources to spout off without verification of the "facts."

This is an expanded notion of verification, which has meant that journalists should verify the assertions of sources with other trusted sources. But the fairness bias encourages journalists not to do very much fact checking, e.g. Senator Blowhard makes a claim; Joe Reporter verifies that Jane Source agrees; Joe Reporter gets "the other side" from Senator Numbnutz; verifies with Sally Source; then Joe Reporter writes is up. But what if Senator Blowhard has his facts wrong?

Okay, so what's a "fact"? Where do they come from? Facts are found (created) by measurements or (verified) eyewitness accounts. You may notice that the two parts of my definition don't match. A measurement, as long as we agree on the instrument of measure, gives us a number to work with. But human perception of events comes filtered. What I'm getting at here is this: facts are not necessarily easy things to nail down unless we're measuring (and even then we can run into problems).

There can be no argument over facts in themselves. We argue about how facts are measured and what facts mean. And we argue about assertions of fact until such assertions are established as fact. Reporters should consider the statements by sources as assertions of fact until such time as the reporter can establish them as facts. The news organization, then, should not publish unverified assertions without disclaimers or qualifiers.

Vaughn Ververs, while asserting that traditional sources of news in America are losing influence, posits something related to Jamieson's custodian idea:

What we believe is necessary to keep these news sources in their traditional role of major and trusted news outlets goes far beyond their current Web sites, beyond color pictures in the paper, beyond embedded reporters in the field or fancy redesigns. These organizations need to take a bigger step forward and establish themselves as the places that validate the news. Don't just report the "news"; define the accuracy of it.

Ververs concerns himself with the influence of traditional news media and how that influence may be waning. He claims such outlets as network television always appear to be one step behind the internet and the cable news channels. These traditional media are left to recap the news.

Ververs concludes:

Major media outlets need a makeover to regain their place at the top of the news food chain. They cannot be afraid to touch any story in any way. They must debunk or disprove stories and rumors that are not true. They must go beyond the "sources" they cultivate at cocktail parties and rely on solid information to back them up. They need to be biased by admission and balanced by the same. Consumers are hungry for information they can trust. Give it to them.

Make this the new news motto: Find the truth, report the truth, and explain why your organization believes it's the truth. A great many pros may find themselves surprised at how warmly that approach would be received.

I don't think he should have introduced the concept of "truth" here. But I suppose he's using it the way so many journalists do: as roughly a synonym for "facts" or that which we get when we discover and report facts.

On the other hand, Ververs is arguing for something more than Jamieson; he's arguing for a concept of verification that includes media transparency, i.e. how journalists gather this information, and what they think about it, is as important as the assertions of sources.

The rhetoric of journalism changes over time. I have argued that the current model is changing, and the ideas that Jamieson and Ververs present appear to me to follow the path that I see leading to the future of journalistic practice.

Ververs final assertion is a hypothesis. All news media should test it.

UPDATE (10:15 a.m.): William Powers claims:

The modern media have an insatiable need for exactly the kind of work that the news scandals are all about--stories that are a bit suspect, tendentious, vaguely too good (or bad) to be true. This hunger is not conscious, and you'll be hard-pressed to find reporters or editors who'll tell you that this is what they seek. In fact, whenever a media scandal breaks, it's other journalists who run around in a collective panic, wondering how this could possibly be happening again.

Here's how. The news business often rewards people who get the story not quite right--reporters who allow errors of fact, judgment, and emphasis to subtly shape their work. I say "subtly" in order to make a distinction. I'm not talking now about the outright liars and fabricators; they are monstrous caricatures of a more common and insidious type. I'm talking about some of the smartest, hardest-working people in the news business, individuals who have a record of basically getting things right -- and, in many cases, doing so before anyone else.

As it happens, some of this breed have an inborn knack for delivering the news in a way that's especially magnetic and, well, newsy. They produce the stories that leap out of the pack, get people talking, have an impact, sell papers, win prizes. But the magnetism of these stories is often rooted in their flaws--flaws of fact, judgment, and emphasis.

Another example of the narrative bias of journalism.

I think that being the custodian of fact could be a new way for journalism to scratch the dramatic itch. Instead of simply pitting one source against another in a battle of assertions, or emphasizing one over the other to create drama where little exists, what if one of the sources is a liar, an incompetent, or a political manipulator? Hmmmm...now that could be a story. (Yes, I'm a bit offended by my own assertion. But one "fact" I think we must face: Narrative bias, which affects all human communication, is not going away--nor should it.)

When it hits the fan...

Yes, we Baby Boomers are an obnoxious bunch. Jay Manifold keeps his finger on the pulse of our apocalyptic rhetoric. Re: "wisely, but remorselessly." Who gets to decide what "wisely" means? Well, we do.

Information utility and the i-net...

Continuing commentary on the new survey of American journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: Today's topic: Section 3, Today's Changing Newsroom.

One could make an excellent argument for this proposition: The biggest change in journalism in the past ten years has been the use of the internet as a news outlet and research tool.

Is this a good thing? I can hear Neal Postman reminding us all to question very closely what problem it is that a new technology solves (plus: who wins? who loses? what changes?). And he'd remind us that once introduced it can't be taken back.

Because I consider the internet to be primarily a text-based medium (i.e. you have to read it), I'm inclined to suppose it is on balance a positive addition to our culture and the practice of journalism. But let's not suppose everyone wins. To use the internet requires enough income to afford the equipment and an ISP. It requires a certain amount of time and technical skill. That public sphere created by this technology is still rather small. How many people on your block have internet access at home? How many know what a blog is?

From the survey results:

Another widely noted positive impact of the Internet is its ability to deliver information to the public more quickly and to promote greater competition among news organizations. This view is much more prevalent among print journalists than among those working in TV and radio. A frequent comment within this theme is that print journalism now has the ability to compete with television and radio for breaking news. Also, the speed of the Internet in delivering information was the single most cited benefit among journalists who work primarily on their organization's websites.

I believe competition in print journalism is a good thing. The loss of 2-paper towns in America is, to my way of thinking, a civic catastrophe. Whether the internet can provide a similar dynamism remains to be seen. I am disturbed, however, that journalists see the internet as a way to compete with television. Print journalists should not allow their eyes to be sparkled by any medium that promises the impossible. I believe the more print tries to compete with television the more it loses. The road to salvation is good local journalism and strong second-day coverage of important national events. I believe the era of print as a medium of consistent breaking news has long passed.

More from the results:

Those who think the Internet has been bad for journalism most often cite the fact that it promotes the spread of unvetted and unfiltered information to the public; nearly half (53% national, 45% local) cite this concern. Others express a related concern about the speed and pressure of the Internet leading to too many factual errors in news coverage (17% national, 29% local).

Another concern raised by some is that the Internet has promoted the rise of pseudo-journalism, "junk" sites, and low-brow news. One negative consequence cited by several respondents is that "news" reported on these sites force mainstream journalists to waste time chasing down baseless rumors and innuendo. In a similar vein, a smaller group refers specifically to the Internet having damaged the credibility of journalism in the mind of the public.

Surely only consumers may judge the political or social utility of information for themselves. Journalism works on an editorial ethos necessary to the smooth operation of a limited system of information delivery. And, just as surely, journalists develop an expertise in judging the newsworthiness of events based on the structural biases of the profession. But journalists should never suppose that they are keepers of a deeper understanding civic information, knowledge, or wisdom. The political and social utility of "junk" or "unvetted and unfiltered information" has nothing to do with the professional journalist's opinion of it. Journalists should be learning from the internet that information, knowledge, and wisdom are being freed from editorial control, and many citizens--news consumers--see this as a good thing.

Previous entries:

Complex system
To be good

All that jazz...

Kid Rhetorica is out of school for the summer. We'd promised her a dog this year. She needs something to focus on to keep her mind off the transition. So you see in the picture the results of my labors yesterday. Sniffy, an AKC beagle, is the newest member of the Rhetorica household. The adventure included a drive to the country on a gloriously clear and crisp spring day, which is, romantically, the way children should acquire a first dog. Sniffy joins Chester the (very upset) cat and four toads.

I haven't written much about myself or my family on Rhetorica in the past two years largely because that part of me is off-topic, or at least that's what I thought. But with the move and the new job, I find that at the very least I need to keep Rhetorica readers informed because all of this affects the quality my product. But, more, the move and job also affect the content of this blog. I'm still wrestling with what it means to be a rhetoric scholar who teaches journalism.

Wife Rhetorica believes, and I agree, that my new position at SMS is "perfect" for me. But, as a seasoned reporter and writer with more than 20 years of experience, she also believes I was the "counter-intuitive" choice. I agree. But what I like about the new Department of Media, Journalism, and Film is the interesting mix of scholars. My impression has been that they're all on different pages and like it that way. So the choice seems in line with what this department is shaping up to be.

Okay, enough about me. Kid Rhetorica is giddy with delight. Watching her and the pup takes our minds off all the moving hassles.

History of information...

I'm very busy right now with the move to Springfield and all the nonsense that goes with it (including some self-imposed nonsense--more anon). So wouldn't you know it--there are lots of interesting (and looooong) essays to comment on this week.

Anyway, here's one you don't have to read straight through to get all the good. It's a timeline of information by superstar linguist (not an oxymoron) Geoffrey Nunberg.

Another interesting perspective...

Loyal reader Rebecca points out this essay on bias in the news media. It's interesting, and I recommend it. I'm uncomfortable with some of the author's generalizations; some of them simply do not conform to current research. But the essay has many cogent moments and gives us a glimpse at what media bias looks like from the perspective of an intelligent non-media professional.