Surely this is a troubling outcome for journalists who believe in empirical facts as the basis of reality. But for Manjoo, truthiness is only part of the problem. He cites the transformation of CNN’s Lou Dobbs: a man who once revered Big Business is now one of its great detractors, even as he conducts a one-man crusade against illegal immigrants. “When you investigate the roots of bias in the media,” Manjoo writes, “Lou Dobbs’s personal motivations begin to appear less important than the system in which he operates.” And according to the logic of that system, viewers will invariably consider stories on controversial topics “slanted away from their own views.” So why not throw in their collective lot with Dobbs (and Glenn Beck and Olbermann and O’Reilly)? The bottom line: in contemporary media, “objectivity doesn’t pay as well as taking a strong, mad-as-hell stance.”
Dobbs has shifted his approach, says the author, because audiences have bought into the notion that news is not, and cannot be, objective. If viewers outside Dobbs’s target demographic find many of his reports bizarre, so what? Attacks by critics may actually reinforce the broadcaster’s ties to his audience. “Dobbs is not a raving idiot,” Manjoo assures us. “He just plays one on TV. Given the circumstances, he’d be a fool not to.”
How, then, can the profession fight back? Just as sunlight is the best disinfectant for rotten government, so is skepticism the best and most reliable friend of journalists who care about truth and not just stories that are “true enough.” The old adage is more essential than ever: if your mother says she loves you, check it out. Repeated trips to the factual well remain the best way to distill reality and guard against hype. Check, cross check, and check again. Truth may be getting its shoes on while a lie reaches half way around the world, as Mark Twain observed. But truth still matters, and in the long run, it will prevail so long as a decent number of people push for it.
Surely this is a troubling outcome for journalists who believe in empirical facts as the basis of reality.
I think this sums up a lot about what’s wrong with journalism and people like Johnston in particular. Facts, in and of themselves, are meaningless. The only things that matters are the conclusions that we draw from them. Some conclusions are certainly better supported by the facts at hand and some are certainly less well supported by the facts at hand. Sometimes, as Johnston notes, facts can be selected from a wide pool of data with the facts that support a preconceived bias being used and facts that don’t support this preconceived bias are ignored.
But lets use an example from Johnston’s own work to play this out.
FACT: The IRS lacks resources and manpower to adequately police tax cheats
Johnston’s Conclusion The government (especially the Republicans), the wealthy and those nasty ol’ corporations are all in collusion to subsidize the rich and screw the poor.
According to Johnston and the truthiness of his narrative, this is obvious, and the greatest part about it is that it reinforces every long standing preconceived belief he has ever had. Fact and expert opinion that supported this were used “liberally” (pun definitely intended) and those that did not were downplayed or ignored. This was all pretty well laid out by the University of Delaware’s Sheldon Pollack.
So Mr Johnston, be careful when you point fingers because three of them are pointing back at you. Truth does exist, but we little people find it a bit arrogant that people like you get to decide what that truth is.
Posted by TDC on Thu 31 Jul 2008 at 11:03 AM
It's amazing to see Media Matters and Newshounds both claim that Chris Matthews or the late Tim Russert were biased depending on what day of the week it was. One thing that always throws the bias truthers is that biased journalism gets better ratings than balanced journalism every time.
One thing I really like about TDC's commentary is how telling their comments are towards the action of trolling sites to try and intimidate people who have a difference of opinion. Being right doesn't seem to be an issue (see TDC's Anbar Awakening post). It's the strategy of keep stabbing until you draw blood by cutting and pasting eight words at at time.
The reason facts are meaningless to TDC is we have moved to a subjective culture where nothing is ever settled. This especially behooves people who like to argue about nothing, instead of trying to advance the debate and solidify whether a conclusion can be made or not towards a fact. Wikipedia, with all its flaws, is a model of that, that you are working towards a fact on the fly. But people are always caught trying to change the "truth" on Wikipedia and sock puppets abound.
Ironically, just about every post from TDC here strengthens the argument in Johnston's first paragraph: anonymous people often not only attack a journalist's message, but the journalist him/herself. Again, facts are meaningless in the world of ad hominems. The comments here seem to be "My opinion is that your opinion is wrong based on someone else's opinion that I'm going to crown as the right answer".
I often laugh at the notion of journalistic bias because of the mixed message it relates: Bias in journalism is a danger to people that can't think for themselves, and championed by anonymous citizens who have a superhuman ability to see through the ruse. That in itself shows an arrogance towards a nation of free thinkers.
I only see bad news for an anonymous populace that attacks its free press. I personally don't want to give up the notion of a free press to the government. We are now seeing people paid by companies and even the government to comment anonymously against their opposition. It's only a matter of time before the world is flat again.
Posted by Circusboy on Thu 31 Jul 2008 at 08:20 PM
Circusboy, if a post from me on low traffic Journalism site like this is enough to intimidate anyone, Then I shudder to think how you would react to some real repression. Perhaps that’s why liberals snarky wit ends with quiet Christians and the hapless Mormons.
The free press has gotten a free pass for too long. With the explosion of well informed amateurs and mouthy professionals that populate weblogs, the old school journalists have lost their monopoly on the dissemination of facts and the pontification of opinions, and it shows. Mass layoffs and record low public trust of journalists should be a good indication that people are tired of having the same narrative shoved down their throats.
Get used to it Circusboy, because while I might go away some day, the millions of people like me are here to stay.
Posted by TDC on Thu 31 Jul 2008 at 09:14 PM
Internet postings, Circusboy, are not intimidating, at least to me. They encourage robust debate. Unfortunately too many people descend into ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with issues.
Unlike TDC, I sign my work with my real name and I base my reporting on facts which can be verified. The conclusions I draw in my books and reviews are offered in the competitive marketplace of ideas where people, thoughtful or not, can assess them, embracing or rejecting them.
TDC posits, falsely, that people cannot draw their own conclusions from facts and that journalists someone wish to limit people's knowledge. Talk about turning facts in their head. Readers are not mindless. Every reporter I have known wants to shout from the rooftops what they know and want every one of their pieces to run on Page One. And there are lots of different outlets for readers to choose from in the market.
Also, TDC errs in his or her conclusion that traditional fact-based journalism is waning. It is not. Readership is rising thanks to the Internet. The problem is revenue, a function of the Internet's lower cost structure, which is vitiating the newspaper advertising model especially for what Pulitzer called "mustard" -- high profit classifieds.
One hopes others who post here will deal with the issues Manjoo raises, which are worthy of debate.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Fri 1 Aug 2008 at 03:17 AM
TDC,
Ending your post with a threat is debate? ("So Mr Johnston, be careful when you point fingers because three of them are pointing back at you."). Regardless of whether they take you seriously or not, I look at the hounding of writers here as intimidation: simply having an opinion that differs from your "facts" starts the attack machine.
I know that you've ignored my points (and others) yet again, TDC, but I seriously doubt that there are millions of conservatives paying attention, much less focused on supposed bias. They're watching American Idol for Pete's sakes, not that video clip of Liz Sidoti giving McCain doughnuts. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Circusboy on Fri 1 Aug 2008 at 07:23 AM
As always, David Cay Johnston, has delivered a thoughtful essay. I will read "True Enough" next. Thanks!
Hyla Glover
Posted by Hyla Glover on Wed 13 Aug 2008 at 08:43 AM
Manjoo’s thesis is a perfect illustration of why the public has such a visceral distrust of journalists. “Advocacy journalism” has completely discredited the media – just look at how many New York Times reporters moonlight as activists. And we’re supposed to believe that they’re impartial?
The great irony is Johnston’s inability to apply this lesson to himself or journalists at large. The CJR is one of the worst examples of political bias; demonizing Republicans, big business or anything with a hint of conservatism. Far from convincing others, it only serves to destroy its own credibility.
Posted by JLD on Wed 13 Aug 2008 at 09:30 AM
The only thing news people know how to do right is beat the competition. When markets are no longer truly and intensely competitive, nobody in the news business knows what to do any longer. That's when they start thinking they should have a philosophy. The problem there is that very few people in the news business ever took philosophy. What they come up with instead are soft-focused sentiments worthy of Hallmark Greeting cards. But Johnston is right. The jewel that will always inspire fresh competition is truth. Somebody's going to try to get to it so they can own it and maybe sell off pieces. All of this blogography is a signal that a whole new competition for the truth is churning out there. It doesn't matter how messy it is. In the din and the smoke, the public will catch a glimpse of the truth. That's how Thomas Jefferson believed it would work. He was a champion of the First Amendment who hated the press of his time. His faith was always in the public, voting with its penny for the best press. Thats how it gets sorted out. Everybody wade in and give it your best shot. The reader will be the judge.
Posted by JimS on Wed 13 Aug 2008 at 02:11 PM
I see no reason to disbelieve the capital punishment study or the other facts reported herein. But here is an interesting observation.
Even well-educated people by and large will employ all the tools of criticism against those of us on the left or in the peace movement. They will not deploy these same tools against the New York Times or the Washington Post or other media of disinformation.
I think there are problems in the way we educate our intelligentsia; perhaps deliberately fostered problems. Or perhaps there is at work a basic human survival mechanism -- willfully blind obedience to authority. What do you think?
Chris Herz
cdherz44@yahoo.com
Posted by Chris Herz on Thu 14 Aug 2008 at 08:45 AM
JLD, please send right away the names of the "many New York Times reporters [who] moonlight as activists."
Doing so is a firing offense, as it should be, and if there is any violation of that policy it ought to be reported on aggressively and if, as you assert, it is widespread it is a major concern.
Please post the names and, so I can get my inquiry started, as much evidence as you have of such outside activism or "moonlighting."
You might also want to read my latest book, which is about government interference in markets, which vitiates many of the benefits of market capitalism and allows government to pick economic winners instead of the market making those choices. Based on your post I am sure its contents will surprise you (as well as challenge the thesis of your post).
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Sun 17 Aug 2008 at 07:11 PM
A piece in the fall 2000 edition of the Dartmouth Alumni rag, written by an assistant Government professor, purported to instruct readers in the detection of "liberal bias" in the media. I read it the same day the NYT reported on a Princeton Survey study showing that favorable Bush news stories outnumbered favorable Gore stories by almost two to one. I'd like to think that fact changed the tenor of the assistant professor's lectures, but I doubt it.
Posted by Josh Nossiter on Mon 18 Aug 2008 at 02:18 PM
"JLD, please send right away the names of the "many New York Times reporters [who] moonlight as activists."
Hi David,
I’d say you are exhibit A. It’s obvious that you have an extreme left-wing bias against large corporations, and against capitalism in general. Here’s a timely summary of your recent activities:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/08/18/whatever-happened-to-david-cay-johnston-former-nyt-business-journalists-leftiness-is-in-full-bloom/
Thanks for the offer to read your book. FYI I have worked for corporations both large and small on three continents and have seen both the positive and negative effects firsthand. I seriously doubt that an academic / journalistic perspective from someone with no direct experience in business (and who has already made up their mind decades ago) would add much insight.
Cheers, JLD
Posted by JLD on Mon 18 Aug 2008 at 04:46 PM
JLD reminds me of an acquaintance who's proud of getting all his news from FOX. Just like Dick Cheney. And whaddya know? Just like Cheney my acquaintance is a blinkered ignoramus whose entire thought process consists of choosing which GOP propaganda point, slogan, or label to apply to what context. Johnston is one of the scant handful who write the truth about what Bush has done to our financial system, tax code, economy, world. Now we're sitting amongst the rubble of Bush's demolition job, with the proof of the dire malfeasance Johnston's been writing about all around us. And yet there are still those brainwashed enough to describe the Johnstons of this world as "left-wing" extremists merely for pointing out the obvious! Here's a fact for you, JLD: Johnston is so far from having any kind of "extreme left-wing bias" that he's a Republican. Or at least he was. The past seven years may have cured him as they have many another repentant Repub.
Posted by Josh Nossiter on Mon 18 Aug 2008 at 06:55 PM
JLD,
1) Again, please, names and specifics to back up your assertion so the facts can be checked out because if what you write is true that is a great story that needs to be told. And if I am your only example what follows will show your post is nonsense.
2) Free Lunch exposes little-known government policies that thwart competitive markets while forcing taxpayers to subsidize individual businesses and whole industries to the detriment of competing businesses. So your charge is bizarre as well as nonsense.
3) What makes you think I have no direct experience in business? I have run small businesses and met payrolls for years and am chairman of the board of a small company (with international ambitions). As a reporter I was a small businessman whose line was selling articles I wanted to do, for which I negotiated a retainer that legally is called a salary. I am also a director, and finance committee member, of a multimillion dollar nonprofit that relies on the market for the vast majority of its revenue.
Your assumptions now debunked, I look forward to names and specifics to back up your original assertion. And I hope you read Free Lunch because you will learn a lot about how our governments at all levels and through both parties are working against market capitalism.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Mon 18 Aug 2008 at 09:21 PM