A dear friend, Lynn Chesnut, has opined for a long time that “broadcast journalism” is inherently untruthful, illegitimate, and generally unnecessary. When I first encountered Lynn’s thesis, I was seriously disturbed by it. Is there an actual social benefit from American citizens not knowing what’s going on in distant places? Perhaps, perhaps not. But Lynn’s argument is more about the subversion of journalism by power-seekers and influence-peddlers:
By formatting the bands and standardizing the bandwidths the government actually created broadcasting as we know it. The FCC regulates broadcasting–licensing a handful of privileged people to broadcast at different frequency bands in particular locations. That is something not contemplated in the First Amendment, and which should never pass constitutional muster if applied to the literal press. Not only so, but the FCC requires application for renewal on the basis that a licensee broadcaster is “operating in the public interest as a public trustee.” That is a breathtaking departure from the First Amendment.
No one questions the political power of broadcasting; the broadcasters themselves obviously sell that viewpoint when they are taking money for political advertising. What does it mean, therefore, when the government (FCC) creates a political venue which transcends the literal press? And what does it mean when the government excludes you and me–and almost everyone else–from that venue in favor of a few privileged licensees? And what does it mean when the government maintains the right to pull the license of anyone it does allow to participate in that venue? It means a government far outside its First Amendment limits. When it comes to broadcasting and the FCC, clearly the First Amendment has nothing to do with the case.
There’s a tremendous amount of substance there. We know from experience that power-seekers will gravitate to any organization that wields power. They’ll also do their damnedest to rise within it…and to block the entry or elevation of persons opposed to their agendas. That’s the basis of Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics. The years since World War II have proved that the “journalism industry” is no exception.
The above, which speaks powerfully even standing alone, is mainly prefatory to John Stossel’s most recent effort:
Reporters overwhelmingly lean Democrat. A survey by The American Journalist found that for every Republican in a newsroom, there are 10 Democrats.
The reporters claim to be objective.
They aren’t.
News networks always covered Iowa Caucus victory speeches. Not this year — after Donald Trump won. CNN cut away from his speech, and MSNBC didn’t carry it at all.
Recently, NPR hired a new CEO. They chose Katherine Maher, who once tweeted that “Trump is a racist.” During BLM looting, she tweeted, “It’s hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression.”
Now she’s the boss of government-funded radio?
Sadly, yes.
Please read Stossel’s whole piece.
Lynn makes the point that journalism – with emphasis on broadcast journalism – is about entertainment. That’s very close to the center of the bull’s-eye. Journalism is an industry, which, like all industries, seeks profits. The journalism industry will produce “what sells.” The reader / listener / viewer is largely interested in diversion: entertainment. To divert and entertain, a “story” must be dramatic: a significant departure from the norm. Editors are fully aware of this. “If it bleeds, it leads.” “Sex crimes sell newspapers.”
You might think that Stossel’s observations about the political slant in big-time journalism are off-axis to Lynn’s thesis. But it is not so. Smart journalists know that simply haranguing the reader / listener / viewer will cause him to turn away. They know that to push their message effectively, they must entertain. For many years, the barons of broadcast journalism understood this and based their media strategies on it.
But somewhere in the past decade, they slipped. They went too far in one direction. It became obvious that facts and sound reasoning about them were of no real interest to them. Their political agenda had become too blatant. In that lies a great part of our hope.
Trust is misplaced when awarded to persons with an axe to grind – and nearly all journalists fit into that category. So trust no journalist, no editorialist, and no opinion-monger. No, not even me. Check everything. More, never be perfectly confident that you’ve done the whole job. Even in the smallest and lightest matters, the odds are heavily against that and always will be.
Wait a moment: I do have a couple of exceptions to the “trust no one” rule. The first is one I’ve cited before:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it – no matter if I have said it! – except it agree with your own reason and your own common sense. – Siddhartha Gautama, perhaps better known as the Buddha
The second is also widely known:
“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” – Jesus of Nazareth
Now go forth.
