Monday, October 10, 2005
The "Both Sides" Argument
I mentioned today in class two blog posts that addressed the question of whether the media is doing its job by presenting "both sides" of any given issue or should instead aim to sort through the noise and try to get to some version of the truth. Both were written by liberal blogger Duncan Black, aka Atrios. The first post in particular really gets to the heart of the matter, at least as I see it. To give you some context, Black attended an electronic journalism conference over the weekend:
One of the things I said repeatedly this weekend to various people is that that the press has been listening to the wrong type of criticism while ignoring more legitimate complaints. I have mixed feelings about whether the model of "balanced journalism" that we have in this country is really the best model, but the ultimate result matters more than some theoretical discussion about what the best model is. While I certainly think from my perspective that shrieks from the Right about *liberal bias* in the media have led to journalism being overly sympathetic to conservatives and Republicans, more important than the political tone of the coverage is the fact that the press has internalized the notion that the highest ideal is not to report the truth in a way which educates people, but the ideal of appearing unbiased. This isn't balance, it is simply braindead stenography. And, more importantly perhaps, it's the kind of braindead stenography which favors views and viewpoints which are backed by powerful well-funded interests. Anyone who can *catapult the propaganda* into the press can get their views legitimized, no matter how wrong.
Khrystean brought up this issue of the media being controlled or influenced by "well-funded interests," though she had a different opinion than me on whether the goal of *balance* might be part of the problem. Black clearly believes this is the case, and though he takes particular issue with how conservatives take advantage of this model, his point about following the money also can be extended to liberal opinion makers. "Both sides" almost always means two rich (and usually white) guys, one representing the the interests of Republican party and his own interests and position within the party machinary and the other representing the same things, only from the "other side." Thus, we get Carville vs. Novak, Buchanan vs. Begala, etc.
Anyway, here are the links to the posts:
"Balanced Journalism"
"Journamalism"
The phrase "catapult the propaganda," by the way, comes from a speech by President Bush (video link) on Social Security reform. The official transcript of the speech--or what the White House calls "a conversation"--can be found here. ¶ 9:03 PM
One of the things I said repeatedly this weekend to various people is that that the press has been listening to the wrong type of criticism while ignoring more legitimate complaints. I have mixed feelings about whether the model of "balanced journalism" that we have in this country is really the best model, but the ultimate result matters more than some theoretical discussion about what the best model is. While I certainly think from my perspective that shrieks from the Right about *liberal bias* in the media have led to journalism being overly sympathetic to conservatives and Republicans, more important than the political tone of the coverage is the fact that the press has internalized the notion that the highest ideal is not to report the truth in a way which educates people, but the ideal of appearing unbiased. This isn't balance, it is simply braindead stenography. And, more importantly perhaps, it's the kind of braindead stenography which favors views and viewpoints which are backed by powerful well-funded interests. Anyone who can *catapult the propaganda* into the press can get their views legitimized, no matter how wrong.
Khrystean brought up this issue of the media being controlled or influenced by "well-funded interests," though she had a different opinion than me on whether the goal of *balance* might be part of the problem. Black clearly believes this is the case, and though he takes particular issue with how conservatives take advantage of this model, his point about following the money also can be extended to liberal opinion makers. "Both sides" almost always means two rich (and usually white) guys, one representing the the interests of Republican party and his own interests and position within the party machinary and the other representing the same things, only from the "other side." Thus, we get Carville vs. Novak, Buchanan vs. Begala, etc.
Anyway, here are the links to the posts:
"Balanced Journalism"
"Journamalism"
The phrase "catapult the propaganda," by the way, comes from a speech by President Bush (video link) on Social Security reform. The official transcript of the speech--or what the White House calls "a conversation"--can be found here. ¶ 9:03 PM
