Gayle Falkenthal, a multimodal media maven for many moons, made some pertinent remarks to my column about John Culea at last week’s media panel. I’m going to give you the comment in full and then elaborate. (I’m bolding especially important points)
Take it away, Gayle!
“As a veteran (!) former broadcaster who also spent time representing elected officials and public organizations, the cavalier attitude and the egregious errors of fact relayed to the audience by the panel shocked me. I would have been fired for lesser offenses. The many journalists doing good work in San Diego should take their peers to the woodshed for embarrassing them with such a lack of professionalism.
“Let me also use this post to offer comments on another part of the dialogue at this forum. John Culea informed the audience that due to being misquoted repeatedly, Supervisor Horn would only issue answers to questions from reporters in writing, with rare exception. Culea also mentioned there were several reporters Supervisor Horn would no longer respond to at all. Several journalists in the audience howled in protest, saying as an elected official Supervisor Horn had no choice but to respond to reporters.
“The last time I checked, interviews with journalists were still optional in the United States. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom NOT to speak if one chooses. Voters can judge for themselves whether they feel shut out of the political process by not being able to hear from Supervisor Horn via the news media, but giving interviews isn’t a requirement for holding elected office.
“Media gatekeepers better figure out fast they are becoming optional. News coverage isn’t the only way to communicate with voters. Culea described how Supervisor Horn gets his say on his own website. Thanks to online and social media, you have unfiltered access to your constituents. They can balance this information versus more critical coverage from opponents. And in many cases, voters have MORE access through the ability to have a dialogue online with their elected representatives. Many of you reading now have engaged in Twitter conversations with officeholders.
“Media coverage provides value through verified, sourced information and analysis, with assertions that can be independently proven. This is what differentiates it from other forms of communication with built-in bias and a lack of vetting. Introducing undisclosed bias, errors of fact, and disrespectful name-calling puts true journalism on an even playing field with the most extreme published views parading as “news.”
“It pains me to see the waters muddied in this way. Journalism is a noble and honored profession. Is there still room for it?”
———————————-
Well said, Gayle!
I recently experienced what Gayle said about social media supplanting traditional journalism. A court decision invalidating a state gun law received virtually no media coverage the day it was announced. I could find just one MSM entry, a blog post by the LA Times at 7:32 p.m.. I found out about it hours earlier through a Facebook entry. And nothing from the Associated Press.
Whatever the traditional reporters responsible for that beat were doing that day, they weren’t doing their bread and butter coverage — anywhere. Since the media had abdicated that role, it was filled by those most interested in the decision, namely gun-rights groups. The next day, the journosaur media chimed in with its accounts; the Associated Press did its usual lame spin with a story that added nothing but the lefty reporter Garance Burke’s anti-gun bias, gratuitiously dragging in the Arizona shootings.
The San Diego Union-Tribune ran a story inaccurately claiming the decision was handed down late Tuesday; it was announced Tuesday morning. Yes, it’s a minor error, but still curious.
The media was aware of the impending decision, so surprise can’t be the reason. Media outlets ran stories about the law’s implications earlier this month, some mentioning that its legality was up for review.
My educated guess as a real life reporter is that the bread and butter coverage is being de-emphasized by big media groups, who think gimmicks are more important than that boring bread and butter coverage. But that basic coverage, its completeness and accuracy, is the foundation of public trust in a news organization.
Newspaper editors across the country that subscribe to AP suspect they’re not getting their money’s worth; getting a day-old helping of biased reporting can’t help.
The Associated Press regularly does a big investigative project into the potential dangers of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. These stories are full of hype, but lack any proof humans are being harmed by the infinitesimal amounts of chemicals found there. Since these investigative pieces take a lot of time, of course the AP is going to hype them to justify their expense. That’s not serving the public, that’s fearmongering to serve the AP’s interests.
In short, AP increasingly appears to think that mere timely and accurate reporting isn’t enough. They have to explain what things mean to busy people with dubious fact-checks and other devices. That’s like donning a new tuxedo while wearing no shoes. It creates an effect, all right, but not what the wearer intended.
As the gun law case showed, timely reporting is more vital than ever to news media, if it wishes to be part of people’s daily lives. The spin and inaccuracies are bad enough, but being a whole day late is inexcusable in a world that runs on Internet time.
I certainly want journalism to thrive, and not just because I’m a reporter. There’s a need for people who can tell what has happened without letting their own agenda get in the way. Journalism, in my view, should be an honest broker, giving people information that they can act on as they see fit.
The link above is to a book, The Honest Broker, by Roger Pielke, Jr. He is talking about the roles of scientists, but just substitute “journalist” and it still applies:
“The pure scientist attempts to remain detached from politics and policy, focusing only on research without consideration for its use. The science arbiter answers scientific questions for decision makers but avoids considering normative questions. The issue advocate uses scientific information to advance a specific political agenda or policy alternative. Finally, the honest broker of policy alternatives expands, or at least clarifies, the scope of choice for the decision maker through the integration of knowledge and a broad consideration of possible alternatives.”
————————
(DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.)
Comments 24
We were going to suggest that Gayle’s comments are worthy of a post. Thanks, Brad, for taking care of it, as well as for expanding on the discussion.
Brad, thank you for putting this critically important topic front and center. I’m eager to read the thoughts from many of the credible journalists who I know to be Rostra readers.
I had an offline conversation with one of them about my comment. The journalist showed concern that I was defending the content of Supervisor Horn’s website. Let me post the clarification I offered in response.
I am in no way endorsing the veracity of anything posted on Supervisor Horn’s website. I’ve never visited it and I am in no position to know. However, Supervisor Horn’s approach should give everyone in the news media pause. Horn can still reach his constituents effectively (in his opinion) without the news media. So far, his constituents seem to agree. They’ve returned him to office repeatedly.
As a public relations professional and moreover as a voter active and interested in our governance, I am appalled. I believe an elected official should be responsive to all but the most abusive, bullying, error-prone journalists (and there are a few, as there are bad performers in every profession). If not, I question whether I want such an individual representing me in office. Clearly, Supervisor Horn’s constituents do not find this a dealbreaker.
This is nothing less than a call to action for everyone interested in unfettered public dialogue and open governance. The challenge is this: how do our news media make themselves so vital and so central to public discourse that constituents demand their elected representatives interact with them?
OK, so if Horn doesn’t need the media, why is he running his op-eds in both the U-T and NCT?
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/bos/sup5/news/n101216.html
Also, where’s Richard Rider when you need someone to come out and say that mass communication is best left to the private sector?
Maassive’s question is far better put to the individuals who made the decision to publish Supervisor Horn’s op-ed in their publications. Why wouldn’t Supervisor Horn gladly accept the opportunity for this sort of exposure? When publications choose to run a bylined op-ed submission from someone outside their organizations, the author has complete control over the content.
It’s not the method of delivering communication Supervisor Horn seems to object to. It’s the ability to control the message.
Maassive, to paraphrase a great man — private media is the worst form of media in the world — except for all the rest.
And the WORST choice is govt media — which is at the VERY least biased and protective of government. Govt media often gets regulatory preference by government — up to and including monopoly status (depending on the society, of course).
When govt regulates the media, the anti-Establishment media faces the worst regulatory risks and potential persecution — including prosecution.
Food for thought, my left wing friend.
Rider –
I was hoping you’d mention that govt media is a waste of tax dollars.
Though, of course, I have no problem with live streaming of committee hearings….though that’s just raw material and different than the media we’re talking about here.
Author
I don’t think anyone here wants government media to take over from private media. The danger is more subtle; that private media could discredit itself with the public. By default, that would give government media more influence.
As Gayle said, technology has changed the rules of communication, so that traditional media is becoming optional. It’s in the best interest of traditional media to make sure the public values that option.
Sorry, where’s the danger?
The term “yellow journalism” was coined more than a hundred years ago.
I’m not sure I feel threatened that Bill Horn has 620 friends on Facebook. and 370 Twitter followers.
But I will see if I can put in a PRA for traffic to Horn’s page. My guess is that it’s low, low, low.
Stop the Presses !
Bradley J. Fikes boldly says the MSM must take responsibility
for its own actions….. [gasp].
Further, he states they should ‘own’ some of the skepticism
the public now feels about the 4th Estate. We have not
heard that kind of grown-up message since David Brinkley
was still around.
I recently clashed with a politico who disagreed with my stance that press secretaries serve to maintain transparency. In my world, that meant being honest with my elected officials about coverage outcomes and getting the media to be forthcoming about their story angles. It took a few years in the transition phase to know how to balance the need for the public’s right to know and the ability to build trust between my reporters and bosses. Sometimes, the relationships were productive and sometimes, they were a struggle. Balance is key. I could no more rely on communicating with constituents just through newsletters, direct mail, emails or social media any more than I could just traditional media. I remain a staunch supporter of all of the five freedoms – no one ever said upholding them would be easy.
As Gayle might say, we are clapping our hands in delight at the discussion!
Sills – You’d have to prove to me that the public is any more skeptical now of the press than they have always been. Journalists, lawyers and politicians are the noble professions that have been consistently distrusted since the beginning of civilization.
Erica – That’s why you’re rad.
I might, but I am too busy setting up shot glasses and excellent tequila for my State of the Union Address drinking game.
I say that you have to shoot heroin if someone yells “You lie!” again.
Since — as everyone knows — prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, then journalists, lawyers and politicians couldn’t have been distrusted since the beginning of civilization, as only prostitutes existed for a time at the beginning. We’re not certain if prostitutes were distrusted at that time, or if it was only after journalists, lawyers and politicians came along. But, either way, this conversation comparing the professions in any way could be insulting … to prostitutes. Our opinion any way.
Thor’s Asst:
Why can’t prostitution predate civilization?
Because only THOR himself existed, along with his goddess SIF, and no one was paying for anything.
Author
Prostitution almost certainly predates civilization.
Whether or not public distrust of the media has risen, what has indisputably changed is now the public has alternatives for the media that didn’t exist before.
Maassive, I’m sorry that Issa cut off CityBeat. I hope he reconsiders.
Yes, there are alternatives that didn’t exist before. But there are also lots of new ways to distribute the same old stuff that didn’t exist before. Things are changing, sure. I’m not sure I agree with your overall point.
If you hope Issa reconsiders, then perhaps we should bind together and howl as one.
Author
Maassive,
While the traditional media can distribute in new ways, it hasn’t yet made up for the loss in traditional distribution revenue. It seems odd that this should even be considered a debatable point given what’s happened with media over the last decade or so.
As for Issa, I will point out how unfair it is to penalize reporters for the actions of their editors.
Locally, here are some San Diego names which were
trusted and respected in past decades in a way very
few journalists are today….
Harold KEEN…… Nancy RAY…. Reid CARROLL …Carl SISSKIND……..Fred LEWIS…..John BEATTY……….Frank RHOADES…..Eileen JACKSON…..Ray WILSON….Sam
RINAKER…… Frank SALDANA…..Jack MURPHY……..
and Donald BAUDER….(still working, happily!)
San Diegans remember these names and what they
stood for…a sincere desire to inform while being even-
handed and conscientious. No agendas.
This is our All-Star team, every one a Hall of Famer !
While I don’t believe Jim Sills can PROVE (as Maassive demands) that people are more distrustful today of MSM than decades ago, it sure seems likely to me that such was the case. I imagine polls would bear that out, but I’m not gonna go do the research.
Remember (if you’re a fellow geezer) Huntley-Brinkley, Harry Reasoner, Walter Cronkite, and early Dan Rather (not to mention Ted Baxter)? These men were trusted to deliver the news in an unbiased, albeit authoritative manner.
Did they? Probably not.
But that’s not the point. They were TRUSTED by most of the public.
Sure, there’s always been some distrust. Not enough, IMHO, but some.
Back then, alternative electronic sources were limited. National radio news and national TV news were joined at the hip. And, most important, there was no Internet.
Yes, the Internet is wild and woolly. But it keeps the pressure on the MSM, and raises the skepticism of the public.
As I see it, being skeptical of the news and one’s government is a good thing. We are sheeple no more.
Speaking of Don Bauder, he is is on the case about a possible link between the city of San Diego’s water rate hikes and pension obligations.
Brad –
I’m not debating that. I’m just not drawing the same conclusion as you.
Rider –
If you want numbers, here’s Gallup’s:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1663/Media-Use-Evaluation.aspx
Clearly, people trust the media less now than they did in 1972. But that’s not a recent phenomenon. The bulk of that trust disappeared between 1976 and 1997, well before the Internet became a major source of information.
I’m more interested to know how people felt at the turn of the century and how trust media changed as media changed (radio, then TV, etc).
Sills –
You still think Matt Potter is the greatest investigative journalist in San Diego. Your credibility is nil.