Mandated abortions. Dying on a wait list. Death panels. The healthcare debate teems with rumors, innuendo, and flat-out lies—ranging from the troubling to the full-on ridiculous. In the past, perhaps, the press could counter such misinformation with the blanket declaration of “we’re not going to dignify that with coverage”; as the platforms for rumor-mongering have increased, however, news purveyors no longer have that luxury. On the contrary: in journalism’s brave new world, the press has a renewed obligation to help its audience sort fact from fiction—to help them understand, in essence, what to believe.
But the line between countering lies and endorsing them has always been a precarious one. And it is one made even more precarious by the fact that, now, there are so many voices able to shout out the truth through noise alone.
Fact-checking sites like FactCheck and PolitiFact engage in admirable truth-squadding; how can the media more broadly adopt and adapt those outlets’ ethos of fair-minded evaluation? Have you come across other news organizations, or individual stories, that have done a particularly good job of debunking rumors—and can you imagine further innovations that could help the press challenge misinformation in a fair and systematic way? Broadly speaking: given today’s media environment, how should the press discredit lies?
Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.
"Broadly speaking: given today’s media environment, how should the press discredit lies?"
FIrst by professionally, publically, acknowledging that lies exist at all. Way too much of what passes for journalism seems to depend on some unacknowledged conviction that anything anyone tells you, especially if they are politically prominent, economically powerful, or "conservative," must be reported upon stenographically, but not interpreted.
The mainstream press doesn't seem to be interested in the indisputable fact (truth?) that large classes of society simply invent self serving statements about policy, foreign and domestic. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Saddam related to 911? Both of these major justifications for our disastrous Iraq adventure were plainly falsifiable claims by parties interested in fomenting war. The information was out there for anyone interested to find and call out. McClatchy did; why did virtually the entire mainstream press fail to follow suit.
Too much reporting is couched is some kind of softening language that obscures any real understanding. (see language in NYT and NPR and elsewhere surrounding torture, or the NYT currently describing "death committees")
There is a very important difference between balanced and fair. I believe journalists have a responsibility to honest, informed and fair. Balanced reporting is something entirely different. To me it seems to be the ultimate in relativism. Every time I read a major paper or listen to one of the mainstream news shows or NPR I get the feeling that reporters feel afraid of acknowledging the possibility that one side might simply be wrong. No one is served by a press that reports lies and deceptive claims with the same "professional" skill and balance as material that can be verified by independent sources. That's not accountability journalism that's stenography.
#1 Posted by JPH, CJR on Tue 11 Aug 2009 at 03:24 PM
Being more bold about declaring claims true and false will help, but journalists should keep in mind that the "average person" believes false stories not just because he doesn't know better, but also because he likes them. If you set out to write a myth-debunking story, you are challenging your own readers, not just the people who invented the myth.
Therefore, I think you should challenge them openly. I'd like to see a newspaper launch a regular feature called something like "Do You Believe These Myths?", which would include not only debunkings of widespread misconceptions, but also poll results revealing how many of the paper's own readers believe them.
The problem with trying to inform the public is that a lot of them don't really want to be informed. If journalists want to try to fight this, they should do so by directly encouraging their audience to be more skeptical.
#2 Posted by D. B., CJR on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 01:01 PM
But it is quite frustrating to see the press get involved in so many rumors. For instance the way they mishandled the African American lady that was escorted out of the townhall meeting as if she was just trying to be loud and obnoxious. That wasn't the way it happened at all. The white guy snatched her sign out of her hand which caused her to react. The media got the truth late on this. I mean really, who cares about a lady being escorted out of a town hall meeting. Big deal. Just stick with the facts about the information that is being presented at these meetings and leave the incidentals alone. disney personal checks
disney checks
#3 Posted by Kerry Davis, CJR on Sat 15 Aug 2009 at 02:42 PM
What I find most distressing is the media's inclination to present lies as though there were some room for debate. The least offensive manner of reporting a "difference of opinion" leads the reader or viewer with the impression that a point that is clearly untrue is possibly debatable.
I think that too many active participants in the media, and it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between the media and journalism, have a vested interest in reporting stories in the manner intended by the subjects of the stories. Much of what presents itself as journalism is little more than popular culture reportage with no suggestion of accuracy or validity.
#4 Posted by Jack, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 04:22 PM