Why traditional news reports are fast becoming irrelevant

By recounting vanilla “facts” in a contextual vacuum, American news reports too often distort political debate and mislead the public.

It is a point columnist Paul Krugman made eloquently Friday in a column titled “The Centrist Cop-Out.”

“The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster,” Krugman wrote, referring to country’s impending default on its debt. “For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.”

Almost on cue, Krugman’s newspaper, The New York Times, reaffirms his point today in its coverage. The Times long has been considered the gold standard in intelligent and contextual news reporting. But the contrast between its off-lead news story on the debt and its lead editorial makes clear that casual readers, dropping by for a news update, could easily get the facts but misconstrue the underlying meaning unless they also turned to the editorial page. And a lot of readers, cruising leads and headlines, never get that far.

Let’s look at what that news story said and where it fails:

The story offers this first paragraph:

WASHINGTON — After a 24-hour delay and concessions to conservatives, the House on Friday narrowly approved a Republican fiscal plan that the Senate quickly rejected in a standoff over the federal debt ceiling that was keeping the government on a path to potential default.”

Fact 1: After concessions to conservatives, the House narrowly approves a Republican-led fiscal plan.
Fact 2: The Senate immediately kills it
Fact 3: Default nears.

There is nothing here — or in the next nine paragraphs that carry the story to an inside page — to give readers any sense of what this Republican plan would entail.

Instead the story continues with these facts:

Fact 1: Despite another Obama call compromise, the two parties made “no visible progress.”
Fact 2: Vote was 218-210, “demonstrating deep partisan divide.” All Democrats and 22 Republicans opposed the measure.
Fact 3: White House condemned it.
Fact 4: Republican Speaker John Boehner says: “I would say we tried our level best.”

These facts are followed by several additional paragraphs laying out the next steps in the mind-numbing battle to raise the debt ceiling, which, for the record, has been raised scores of times in the past by Congress without its being held hostage to other budgetary actions. (That, by the way, is not in the story.)

Consider, for a moment, what impact the story that did appear might have on casual readers. They might well assume that the Republicans have tried their darndest. That they finally got a bill passed only to have the Senate block it. It is an interpretation supported by Boehner’s quote high in the story.

Certainly the story leaves the impressions that both sides are equally adamant in their viewpoints and won’t give an inch. But that is nowhere close to the truth — supported by facts.

Fact: Democrats have dropped all demands that taxes on anyone be raised or that tax cuts to the wealthy or loopholes to corporations be rescinded.
Fact: The Boehner plan, we learn in paragraph 10, is contingent on the Congress passing and sending to the states a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget. Certainly the two authors could point out that such legislation is unprecedented; that the last amendment to the Constitution was in 1992; that this amendment, which limited frequency of Congressional pay raises, dates back to the Founding Fathers; and that any bill changing the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority of both Houses just months from now to prevent another severe impasse.

In other words, the facts — aligned as simple clear context, not as opinion or even interpretation — can provide a very different perspective on this story than what appears.

Editorial pages, of course, do express opinion. And The Times editorial — not on Page 1, but on Page A-18 — makes events explicitly clear. It begins like this:

It was hard to imagine that the House bill to raise the debt limit, and slash and burn the economy, could get any worse. But on Friday it did.

The bill, which narrowly passed the House with 218 Republican votes and none from Democrats, would allow the government to keep borrowing only until November or December and then require both the Senate and the House to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the limit could be raised again.

That’s right, in a bid to win over his recalcitrant caucus, Speaker John Boehner agreed to go through all of this again in just a few months — and then hold the country hostage to passing an amendment that will never get the two-thirds of each chamber that it would need. The bill was, as it should have been, promptly dismissed by the Senate.

This kind of writing would have no place on the news pages. But the basis of the opinion, the factual foundations that formed it, belong high in the news for readers to make any sense of the vote. The Republican measure was dead before arrival — the contextual facts make that clear. And this entire process of holding the debt limit hostage not to fiscal policy, but to fiscal ideology, also is unprecedented.

You wouldn’t know that by reading the news. As Krugman says: “… writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties is a big cop-out …”

True fairness is not a false balance. It is a marshaling of facts — fairly — to show the contextual big picture of narrow events.

Advertisements

About jerrylanson

I teach, write, coach and sing, though you're not required to listen to the latter. I'm a journalism professor at Emerson College in Boston. My third book, "Writing for Others, Writing for Ourselves," was published in November by Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. You can read a sample chapter at www.jerrylanson.com. My passions are politics (generally liberal in outlook), music, mountains, golden retrievers and my grandchildren, though not in that order. Please stop by and mix it up with me. I always answer those who post.
This entry was posted in debt ceiling, debt default, deficit, fair and balanced, new york times, news media, newspapers, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Why traditional news reports are fast becoming irrelevant

  1. Mike Cassidy says:

    Some good points here Jerry. One interesting note: Some (many?) readers go bonkers when newspapers thoughtfully deliver deeper context (and even clearly marked opinions in columns and such) saying it proves mainstream media are biased (usually the charge is that they are left-leaning). I suspect some of this complaining is simply political posturing, but I also believe some readers don’t adequately understand the role of a high-quality newspaper.
    I’m not saying newspapers should be cowed by these complaints. I just think it’s interesting/discouraging.

    • jerrylanson says:

      Hi Mike,
      Great to hear from you. My concern is that newspapers have been cowed by just such comments. They play it so “down the middle” that they stop delivering insight, which ultimately reporters get paid for. I think somewhere along the line, the news business got off track in its interpretation of “objectivity.” At Missouri, I was taught that it means gathering the facts without bias, placing them in context and sorting what they mean.

  2. Krugman had written about this same subject on his blog a few days earlier:
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/
    Those measure were, indeed, dead-before-arrival, just as you say, but if a reporter even questions the wisdom of congress wasting time on something that has no chance of passing, they’re tagged for “liberal bias” by conservative flacks like the Media Research Center. You read that Krugman column; you can read the other one to which I link. Does Krugman, at any point, come out against fairness in press coverage of this matter, or in favor of censoring conservative views of the debt-ceiling mess? Those were the claims made by the MRC against Krugman for those columns. The MRC has tried to pressure the press into exactly the sort of incredibly distorted coverage Krugman was denouncing. Some blogs on the subject:
    http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/phony-balance-phony-study-phony-crisis.html
    And:
    http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-on-phony-balance-phony-study-phony.html
    And, of course, the MRC is only one of the many righty organizations and interests trying to bully those in the press into continuing to offer a distorted picture of what’s happening.

    I’m new, here, btw. Just found you.

    • jerrylanson says:

      Hey, thanks for your comment and for sharing Krugman’s earlier column. He’s right. I believe it goes beyond MRC to all the muscle and money of Rupert Murdoch and Co. In essence, Fox News is the media equivalent to The Tea Party. It is one-sided and intransigent and thus pulls the entire debate rightward. When is the last time you read a really thorough analysis with examples of how Fox covers (or distorts) the news? The big media outlets are afraid to take Fox on. The lone voice is Jon Stewart.

      • Several years ago, Glenn Greenwald produced “Outfoxed,” which was a pretty brutal dissection of Fox, but basically an exercise in preaching to the choir. The rest of the “mainstream” corporate press doesn’t criticize Fox, and, in fact, defends it–recall that kerfluffle in (I believe) 2009, when the White House tried to exclude them from a pool interview, and, at a time when Fox was openly and affirmatively fielding the teabaggers, the rest of the press outlets stood up for Fox, and got them in on that interview. The MRC, like Fox, is only a part of a massive right-wing apparatus in the U.S. that moves not just public discourse but–more importantly–the framing of public discourse to the right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s