That orientation—which comes from the notion of objectivity—also helps explain a rather strange approach taken by some journalists who dared to declare death panels false. The researches found that “in 30% of cases where journalists reported in their own words that the claim was false, they nonetheless included either side’s arguments as to why their side was right. This often just confuses the reader.”
Not a very good approach to debunking, is it? The researchers also found that in 72 percent of stories “the reporter labeled the claim false but did so without offering clarification from the legislative language.”
They declared death panels false but didn’t explain why. No context, no proof. And other journalists called them false only to quote sources saying they were true, or close to true. Again, probably not the best way to shoot down misinformation, especially when you know that decades of research tells us that it’s very difficult to change someone’s point of view on a controversial issue like this.
Then there’s the fact that close to 60 percent of the stories examined offered no debunking whatsoever. Many of these reports treated talk about death panels like a legitimate debate in the public sphere.
It seems that a good number of reporters are either unsure or conflicted about how to include a basic element of fact checking or debunking in their work. (Or their bosses are.) Is it really necessary to bring in the “other side” when all they’re doing is propagating a falsehood? It seems some newsrooms think so.
All of this helps explain why public opinion about the truth of death panels did not change during the weeks of coverage evaluated by the researchers. It remained steady, according to Schafer.
“Our data indicate that the mainstream news, particularly newspapers, debunked ‘death panels’ early, fairly often, and in a variety of ways, though some were more direct than others,” he and his co-author write in their paper. “Nevertheless, a significant portion of the public accepted the claim as truth …”
The researches found that as time wore on, fewer news stories treated the death panels as an issue of debate. The he said/she said stories began to disappear.
“By our strict measure, 48% of news stories during the first week after Palin’s Facebook post treated the claim in he said/she said fashion, reporting sources who both decried and promoted it,” they write. “By the second week, only 22% did so, by the third week, 17%, and from the fourth through the sixth week, only 7 to 9% of stories did so.”
Yet public opinion stayed relatively constant over those same weeks. The mainstream, influential American press couldn’t move the meter.
”Rumor Bomb”
One reason for the inability to change public opinion of course relates to the human bias towards not changing our closely held views. (When the apocalypse didn’t come, Harold Camping declared he’d miscalculated and it’s actually due this October…) Another reason is that journalists seem neither willing, nor particularly good at, debunking misinformation.
There’s a third reason, which is summarized nicely in this section of the research paper:
But another way of looking at the “death panels” controversy is to demonstrate that the mainstream media themselves bore some responsibility for the claim’s persistence. The “death panels” claim resembles what one author has called a “rumor bomb”: a strategic catchphrase intentionally designed to undermine serious public deliberation by playing on public uncertainty or fear (Harsin, 2008). Because such claims are not defined with any degree of specificity, he argues, the ability to rebut the rumor with facts is hampered. Such rumors present a “crisis of verification” in which “the reporter is unable to verify the claim through…other reliable sources, in accordance with professional rules of reporting and codes of ethics,” yet because such rumors make for interesting news and are easily spread through new media outlets, they are disseminated anyway—thus accomplishing their goal (2008, p. 165).
Death panels was a catchy meme, and Palin delivered it without specifying which part of the legislation she was referring to.
Random accusations can be almost impossible to disprove. The news media should acquaint the public with the concept of BURDEN OF PROOF.
#1 Posted by Dave Packard, CJR on Sat 28 May 2011 at 12:56 PM
A good example of *why* the media is so ineffective is your colleague Ryan Chittum's Piece on the Elizabeth Warren Smear. The conventions of mainstream journalism has become a straitjacket, rendering most journos incapable and unwilling to write a normal, straightforward description of a given event.
1) Most political journos are profoundly cynical about politics and policy and government. They actually don't care if they get facts wrong. They are indifferent to the truth of what they write. You can write to them with uncontestable data -- quotes, video, tables, graphs -- that they have gotten something wrong, and they are completely indifferent, defending what they wrote all the way up the line. Their editors and their ombudsmen back them up as well. They will only update or correct if someone prominent embarrassingly calls them out. There should be some kind of rotation process that cycles these hacks out into the real world occasionally, for a new perspective on their job.
2) Journos and their editors are terrified that some rightwinger is going to accuse them of "liberal bias." Yes, this is the Twenty-First Century, and mainstream journos still cringe and hide under their desk the minute some rightwing dipstick cries "Liberal!". You see what has happened to Bill Adair of Politifact, who started out as a fair arbiter but has been beaten down by the conservative machine, rendering his work worthless as a factchecker.
3) No journo wants to be "part of the story" and with the powerful rightwing echo chamber, a straightforward description of events is likely to put the reporter in an uncomfortable spotlight, the right setting their thugs to writing and calling and twittering and stalking the hapless reporter. It's easier for a deadline-challenged journo to use the bland, formulaic he-said/she-said. Quoting both sides is good enough.
4) It is an easier ride, and more beneficial professionally and socially, to go along with the conservative message machine. So most of the political journos in Washington are little more than stenographers, carrying water for the GOP. They advance in their career a lot faster this way.
5) A lot of beltway journos are personally invested in the conservative network -- they count conservative operatives as their peers and friends and bar buddies and they are attracted to their GOP Daddies. The young Jake "Fast Break" Sherman of Politico, for example, has been adopted by Daryl Issa, his GOP daddy, who Sherman feeds information that might be useful. Sherman goes so far as to suggest avenues of inquiry to Issa and his staff.
Not even peer criticism, I think, can overcome this bad state of affairs. What's the solution?
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 31 May 2011 at 09:23 AM
We need to add "Bush Lied!" to list of falsehoods promoted by the media, don't we?
As for "death panels", the key lies in the definition... If by "death panel" one means "execution squad", then there are indeed no such agencies created in ObamaCare... However, if one means instead "agencies that ration services to patients", then the matter is hardly closed.
The most egregious of these regulations - the "end of life" counseling mandate for Medicare patients - was only removed by the Obama administration last January.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1&ref=us
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 31 May 2011 at 11:08 AM
Rev. Camping has used his rapture schtick to gather up his flock's worldy assets. He quite literally has a lot invested in his scheme, and so cannot be expected to, erm, repent. The "death panel" scam is similar. Guys like Padster will defend to the death any right-wing trope, 'cause that's where the money's at. Even if he isn't a paid troll, doing what he does here opens up many more career opportunities than, say, learning new things and reporting them would.
So a lot of folks still think Saddam Hussein was in on that 9-11 unpleasantness, and that Iraq had nukes, just like President Cheney repeatedly suggested via Mr. Bush. They think Fannie and Freddie crashed the economy and that half of all Americans pay NO TAXES. People who know better will not be able to convince their fellow citizens otherwise until truth grows some muscle and develops a modern media strategy. That takes money, and there's no percentage in it.
#4 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 31 May 2011 at 08:40 PM
To correct a padikiller mistatement: the "end of life" counseling mandate for Medicare patients was not a mandate at all; it simply provided reimbursement to doctors should they and their patients choose to have this discussion. Hardly egregious, by any definition of the term.
#5 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Wed 1 Jun 2011 at 01:18 PM
Correcting the Minister of Paditude's misstatements would be a full time job, if anyone had the time & could get paid for it. Makes one wonder what the Padster's full time job (correction: "small business") really is, doesn't it?
#6 Posted by edward ericsond jr., CJR on Wed 1 Jun 2011 at 05:32 PM
The "mandate" was in the proposed payment for "end of life counseling" - taxpayers on the hook for this crap - I did not mean to write that the counseling itself was mandatory. But the issue is moot, for the time being at least, since Obama flip-flopped yet again on the issue.
Not so with the "Independent Payment Advisory Board".. This actual ObamaCare "death panel" will give an unelected board of political appointees the power to determine what Medicare will and will not pay for... Thus, although the IPAB is prohibited in theory from rationing healthcare, in reality, it has the authority and practical mandate to do so.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 1 Jun 2011 at 07:39 PM
Edward said: "Correcting the Minister of Paditude's misstatements would be a full time job"
Agreed, but sometimes I just can't resist.
#8 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Thu 2 Jun 2011 at 09:26 AM