No News Is Good News: Is News Coverage Objective?

My wife and I took in the new Broadway play “Good Night and Good Luck” a couple of Saturdays ago. Based upon the 2005 film of the same name, the show is a dramatic presentation of CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow’s (played by George Clooney) very public 1954 clash with Senator Joseph McCarthy during the “Red Scare.” 

Much ink has been spilled describing McCarthy’s exploitation of the anti-communist hysteria of the era, and of Murrow’s broadcasts exposing McCarthy for the cynical bully that he was; I won’t revisit it here. But I left the Winter Garden Theater feeling both a renewed sense of purpose (as a teacher of journalism) and thoroughly depressed at how compromised (to use a polite word) the presentation of news in general, and broadcast news in particular, has become in the decades since the Murrow/McCarthy showdown. Much ink has been spilled about that, too; the evils of media consolidation, deregulation, news as entertainment, entertainment as news, right-wing news, left-wing news, fake news. 

I, however, have come to the realization that the shortcomings of the news gatherers and the news organizations they work for are really only part of the problem.  

The much bigger issue, in my view, is the fact that most people do not know whether the news they consume is any good because they don’t know the standards to which we are supposed to be holding the people who bring it to us. If every American citizen had a working knowledge of even the most basic tenets of Journalism 101, they would reject the content churned out by many news outlets as surely as they would return a Keurig machine that dispensed caffeinated battery acid.  

For example: Attribution. This is the cornerstone of news reporting—the “who says so,” the clear identification of exactly where the information being presented came from. Consumers of the news should know to listen for the attribution in a news story, and be able to conclude whether that attribution was done correctly, done ethically, or at all.

The inappropriateness of editorializing while delivering the news is something else all readers/viewers/listeners should be aware of. Put simply: if you can tell how the anchor or reporter feels about the information or people they are reporting on, what you are receiving is not news. Be it by a choice of words, a raised eyebrow or snarky delivery, this lack of objectivity is a disgrace to the profession and an insult to those on the receiving end of it.

About objectivity: this is not to say that a journalist moderating a debate between two guests on whether the moon is made of cheese is required to sign off with “Well, that’s both sides of the issue, folks. Obviously, this debate is not over.” It is the journalist’s responsibility to know the facts and to point out any misinformation. 

The Cheese Moon brigade will surely howl over this perceived unfairness and accuse the journalist of bias, but pointing out that decades of science have incontrovertibly shown that the moon is not an edible dairy product is not the same thing as ganging up on the person presenting false information. “Alternative facts” is just another term for “lies,” as the meme goes.

The fact is, we are living in an age wherein the only way to be a truly informed person is to consider the reporting of a story or issue from multiple news organizations, then follow up with our own research. No one has time for that. So, the result is that 1) most people who get news tend to get it from a single source, and 2) since it is human nature to seek out people and information that reinforces the views they already have, they 3) find themselves in what’s called an “echo chamber,” a place where all their views on politics and people and wars and taxes and other countries not only go unchallenged—they are applauded. This is what the legendary CBS newsman Marvin Kalb calls “bias validation.” It feels great. But it’s not news.  

The primary function of the free press in this country is to ensure we have an informed electorate. We are not within a thousand miles of having an informed electorate. It is worth debating whether we even have a free press. This won’t change unless we insist upon it with our votes and with our wallets.