Ok, so the last post was a decidely negative take on the media. So in this one, I’ll tackle the question of why journalists are doing a great job.
So are journalists all evil-liberal-minions of the fringe left wing? Uh, no. Do journalists typically lean left in their thinking? Uh, yes, about 80-20 in that direction as it turns out. See study
So what?
So what if more journalists think or lean left in their personal views? So what if their values don’t reflect that of average Americans (see previous study)? There is a strong argument to be made that they might be smarter than the average American.
After all, the term “media elite” didn’t just materialize out thin air. There’s a reason these journalists are elite. There’s a reason they work for the top employers in their field. These folks are really, really smart. They went to the best schools in the world, graduated at the tops of their respective classes and have done some astonishingly good research, writing and reporting over the years in order to ascend to the positions they now hold.
So if they’re smarter, better educated, have access to more information and are surrounded by people just as informed and intelligent as they are, shouldn’t we listen to them?
Here’s the point: opinion, personal belief, value systems, et al will invariably seep into your work. It happens, it’s called being human. This is an area the eastern world understands better about human nature than the we do. The idea that the political, religious, moral, and professional aspects of our lives can simply be categorized and filed away based upon circumstance and the task at hand is simply ridiculous. We are human beings and our beliefs ought to inform our actions. We ought to do what we think is right and we ought to be able to say that without fear of reprisal by folks of a different persuasion.
That’s the beauty of America when it works best.
The remaining question, as it pertains to journalists, is whether their views (due to the fact they are typically more educated and have more access to information than average folks) ought to be the standard, or whether, as journalists, they ought to seek more information, even from sources they consider inferior.
The remaining question, as it pertains to all of us, is whether our views of one another are big enough and generous enough to make way for others.
Peggy Noonan has always been, and will likely always be, one of my all time favorite columnist/writers. She, as very few in the main stream media seem able, has an uncanny ability to see things as they are. She may not be C.S. Lewis with 50 years of foresight in political and cultural thinking, or Dostoevsky who saw much further. But it is still a rare gift to be able to accurately assess that which is happening today.
Perhaps if she lived in a slower time (Just thinking about the sheer pace of our media intake can be nauseating) she might have been one with more foresight. But I still have a profound respect for the acuity of her mind. In her column from yesterday she expresses this mental sharpness with her usual wit.
The media has been called an echo chamber. I think that is an apt description, and in its best moments that is exacly what it does, it echos(definition here) that which is happening loudly enough for the public to hear it and respond. Unfortunately, in our further and further segmented/ing culture, the media begun to create the the sound waves instead of reflecting them. One has only to look at the opinions of “mainstream” media re: FoxNews or MSNBC to understand that producers are creating news as much if not moreso than the events of the day.
If you tell a lie, long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it, despite their better assumptions. Witness the lie of “Separation of Church and State.” The Constitution never utters the words, ever. Look it up. But as the secularists of America, since the early 1960′s have repeated the phrase, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, the public has gradually, slowly begun to accept the idea as fact without critical challenge.
The same is true for today’s economic environment. The media, driven by its endless hunger for the scoop, (partially)created one. A year ago, when the media first began talking about the “economic crisis” none existed. Columnists and editors were throwing around the words recession and depression willy-nilly, and, at that point, jobs were increasing, the economy was still growing, income levels were still rising, and home ownership was at an all time high. Hardly indicators of a coming recession, or worse Great Depression II (as Noonan calls it).
Were there problems? Absolutely, Congress had pushed hard over the last few years to enable sub-prime lenders an easy path, and many home owners were shuddering about the coming need to refinance loans they couldn’t afford. Economic growth was slowing (that’s an interesting phrase btw, one I’d like to address more fully in a later piece). And insurance and rising day-to-day costs like gasoline were reaching historic highs. So there were certainly indicators of difficulty ahead.
But the media had a different goal in mind. They thought by trumpeting the economic woes and by blaming President Bush for it all (a strategy that had worked in previous years on a variety of issues – even SNL understood this one) that they could help the democratic ticket succeed. In fact, it worked. The media successfully changed the issue of the day from leadership, character and security (the primary issues of 2004 according research) to the economy.
The problem is the strategy worked too well.
Not only did it secure the election of Barrack Obama, who may turn out to be just the man for the job, but it actually increased the chances of an actual economic crisis.
Now is it all the media’s fault? Of course not. Like I mentioned, ecomic realities existed in which the potential for downturn could flourish. I think there were two main narratives. 1. Economic realities 2. The media speaking in half-truths over and over again talking about the impending economic doomsday.
Does the media need to rethink it’s goals? Absolutely. The fourth estate needs desperately to rethink its understanding of itself and its role in society. The press exists to to keep people informed and leadership accountable. And, really to keep people informed so that people will keep leadership accountable (remember we do live in a country that can express its opinion via the vote).
The danger is when the press begins to cheer lead for certain candidates, or for certain types of news. Most people don’t have the time, or the energy to think through the editing decisions of major media outlets, they don’t have the desire to do the research and learn for themselves when the press is in the tank for a certain candidate (one study this year showed that media members financial giving was 100-1 for Obama/dems vs. McCain/repubs). People expect the press to be unbiased, to leave their opinions and hopes at the door of their office. In short people expect the press to be professional.
I didn’t go to journalism school. I haven’t worked or written for the New York Times. In fact as far as those standards are concerned, I’m pretty much a nobody. But I am a thoughtful person, one who weighs all of the issues with a sense of responsibility. A person who, at the end of the day, hopes and prays that I make/made good decisions in the roles for which I do have responsibility, because the good of many outweighs the good of my affections or opinions.
Here’s to hoping the press can begin to think this way again soon. And here’s a thankful note for people like Peggy Noonan.
