Another place the old guard is wrong

We like to talk a lot about Pegasus as a revolution -- we have some concepts on content, distribution and advertising that are operationally on the cutting edge. But, when it comes down to it, we're not just about fixing a broken business model -- we're about creating a new communications vernacular, one that will replace "journalism" as we know it. Journalism 2.0? Communications for the new millenium? Call it what you will, but it's a huge shift from the incumbents.

What set me off thinking about this tonight is the hand-wringing that goes on about things like the stereotype of a liberal media; the lengths we in media go to in a vain effort to pretend that we individually and collectively have no biases; and the joke that the concept of "fair and balanced" news has become.

More specifically, I saw this memo from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Romenesko. It discusses which employees can and cannot attend the Vote For Change Tour . (Copied here because of R's lack of memo permalinks.) Be sure to open this up and read it before going on..

I promise I'm not teeing off just on the P-D. Unfortunately, I think this sort of bunk?is the view of most mainstream media.

The general concept is that journalists can't participate in any sort of outward political activity because it compromises their appearance of objectivity.

Never mind that an independent or Republican journalist might really like Bruce Springsteen enough to fork out for MoveOn's shindig, regardless of how his ticket money may be used. The slippery slope here is steep, indeed. Next time the Boss comes to town on his own, will political writers also be banned from that show, since Bruuuce has been branded a known liberal?

That's not the real issue at all. The problem is that the concept of objective reporting as we know it is, in itself, flawed. Outdated. Outmoded. Dead.

There. I said it.

For ages, journalists have clung to a code of objectivity with the tenacity of a Lawyer to the Bar's code of ethics or a priest to his vows. Least of the problems with that that is that journalists have no test, no official code, no vows. Greatest of the problems is that journalism is created by human beings. While good and honorable journalists can vow never to report known falsehoods, the shades of gray inherent in choosing which stories, which facts, which quotes to deliver are an inherent part of the system.

So, say the journalists, we must make sure everyone thinks we're objective. We as individuals?won't participate in politics directly, other than in the sacrosanctity of the voting booth. We won't give money (as if we had any) to political causes. We won't march. We won't rally. We won't attend music festivals put on by political organizations. That way none of our customers will be able to point to us and say, "Aha! Now we have you pegged."

Instead, we'll keep quiet and report what we think is important. That may or may not be colored by our personal closeted politics, but you'll never know. You can't handle knowing.

That said, collectively we (or our owners) will pontificate our political beliefs in unsigned editorials and endorsements. We'll push our own agenda, thank you very much. That's different. Why??Stop asking questions and go read "Love Is..."

That's one way to look at it. Here's another:

The "new journalists" will (do) wear their politics on their sleeves. This is a much more honest way to attack the problem, and essential given that the market is demanding personality and voice, "an experience" from its news providers. (Fox News and talk?radio are?thriving not because of a conservative agenda, but because they provide identifiable voices and personalities.) When reading a reporter's news story, the agenda, if any, is made clear.

But how will we make sure that the stories, the truth, get told? Several ways:

First, I would suggest that any mass-market publisher make sure that he employs reporters of all races, creeds and political persuasions. Let them tell stories accurately (insist that they do!), but within the framework of who they are. In the world of monopoly media, we've forgotten that the market will eventually take care of imbalance. In the world of monopoly media, we have to bend over backwards to hide any possible bias, then let it come out of the closet in a subtly slanted story, or a rush to accept a forgery of which a twelve year-old would be ashamed. In a world with multiple voices, you find that there will be news organizations from the right and the left, but like our political parties, the market will trend to the middle. A smart publisher will make sure he covers the spectrum. And he won't let the limitations of his medium be an excuse for failing to do so.

A side point: In the monopoly world, we now think of news organizations as "an institution" that is accountable to the public, like the government. That's a nice and noble thought, but a fallacy. News organizations are responsible only to the marketplace. Ironically, it's failing to behave like that's the case that has led the legacy media to its current state. (Don't mistake short-term Market?myopia for market-driven behavior. Thats like mistaking Democracy for democracy.)

Secondly, there's a new check and balance that has changed the media world. For the sake of convenience, let's call it the blogosphere, but that's just the current technology. What's key is the phenomenon that anyone with a computer and internet access now has a voice. It may only be read by one, or a hundred, or a hundred thousand; but again, the market (of ideas) will make that call. Those voices can (and do) comment on what is presented by the mainstream media. In fact, that's the best thing to happen to legacy media since the circulation decline began -- there is?a huge population of amateur pundits and commentators, and they don't exist without being fed. And their feed must be common enough that they can understand each other -- that feed creates a huge market for a mainstream media. That market will keep media honest.

By closeting journalists, we're actually being deceitful. We're also insulting the intelligence of our customers -- they know that our reporters have their own biases, but by hiding them in the institution, we provide fuel for the stereotype of media bias. If going to a concert compromises your integrity, you must not have had much in the first place.

I'm not saying that I want reporters wearing Pegasus T-shirts staging a sit-in at the local furrier. That's abusing our brand. But in civillian clothes, they can do what they please. Hopefully they'll spend their off time having "experiences." And then, hopefully they'll write about them, and with disclosure as to why they were there. And we'll be sure to run the furrier's side of the story, too. Because the market will expect that of us.

This is just another part of "open source" journalism.

Journalism 2.0.

The future.

Pegasus News.

Comments

[Mark A. York]

"Let them tell stories accurately (insist that they do!), but within the framework of who they are."

I don't know, I'd settle for unspinning the PR people. When reporters are PR people that's a problem. FOX and Talk radio thrive because they are partisan conservatives. In my view though their facts are incorrect when judged against the truth. They are a megaphone for the misinformation of the administration because they believe it.

Good reporters cut through the crap. Al Qaqa is a case in point. Reported true and spun out of existence by political relativism.

[Jeff Harrell]

FOX and Talk radio thrive because they are partisan conservatives.

FOX and talk radio thrive because they're fun to watch and/or listen to. That's it. It's that simple. It's not about politics; it's about entertainment. FOX and your average talk radio show have a voice and draw in their audience by attracting them with that voice. CNN and MSNBC are losing audience share because they're bland.

Good reporters cut through the crap.

That statement, in my opinion, could not be more wrong. Reporters, taken as a group, are not qualified to be analysts. I mean no offense to anybody at all, but reporters are not generally experts in any field about which they're writing. (I'm certainly not, though at this point I'm not a reporter; I'm an opinionist. Youuuge difference.) When they get out there and try to be analysts, we end up with atrocities like Rathergate and, yes, the al-Qaqaa story. Which, incidentally, was wrong in virtually every single word before it ever left the Times' newsroom, even setting aside for the moment the obvious and disgusting partisan nature of the timing of the story.

If you want to talk about reporters acting as complicit PR flacks, you couldn't have picked a better example than al-Qaqaa. Except in that case the group that sent out the press release — in the form of a leaked internal memo — was the IAEA, and their agenda was to torpedo the President's changes of re-election. The Times took the sheet music and sang like sweet little songbirds, to the mortification of all.

Wanna be an activist? Wanna make a difference? Enter public service. Don't sign up to be a reporter. If you're a reporter with an agenda, you're going to end up doing a lousy job of being either a reporter or an advocate.

I had a really fantastic e-mail conversation with Don North about this last summer, but alas Mr. North never gave me the A-OK to publish any of it. Suffice it to say that he and I don't see eye to eye on this point, but that doesn't detract from the respect I feel for his documentary work. It's just that being a reporter and being a documentarian are two very different things.

(Do I need to say that my opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of Mr. Anonymous Publisher Guy or Pegasus News or any other individual or group? If I need to say that, consider it said. I'm a free agent, baby, and don't you forget it.)

[Trey Shewmake]

Amen.

When writing for gaming and PC hardware review sites, I kept being told to "be objective" about the product, not to let my feelings interfere with the review.

Um, excuse me, but if it's a crappy product, I'll be glad to explain why I think it's crap, but no matter how much I objectify it - it's still crap. How do you write "objective" reviews, anyways? Bah.

I think people are turning more to subjective journalism for news and trusted product reviews, and telling the objective mainstream media to get bent. The biggest problem I see with this trend is not the accuracy of the reporting, but the end bias of the consumer - fanaticism needs little fuel.

[curt]

Here's the problem I have with this entry:

Your statements seem to presume that everyone has a politics to wear on their sleeve. There's been altogether too much "reduction" of complex issues into tidy categories when it comes to politics in this country. I'm pragmatic. I have ideas about what's desireable that neither Rep nor Dem, neither lib nor con, can compass. I'll vote for the best person available in the specific context of that vote (I'll happily vote for a liberal as sheriff or a conservative for... Head Puppy Toucher, if I believe those individuals will be better at their jobs than their opponents). This approach has merit but the way it's communicated presupposes each person is placeable into a pre-fab political egg cup.

Also, although we all come with specific experiences that condition our way of seeing, that doesn't mean we can't discern the truth in a situation, or if not The Truth, at least That which is true. Crud. This is too big an issue and I risk the Increasingly Witless Ramble. So, to paraphrase Dr. Johnson: I sign off thusly.

[Mike Orren]

Not making that presumption, although I can see how it may seem so in the context of the post.

The bigger issue is that IF you have an opinion, there's no reason to keep it out of the story. To do so, frankly, is far more dishonest than a traditional "objective" report in which you get the point of view of all sides, but pick the weaker quotes and points from those with whom you silently disagree.

[curt]

To "pick the weaker quotes and points from those with whom you silently disagree" is indeed cheating at poker. In fact, I've seen it happen. And, as a journalist, it is something to be on guard against and frankly, it's hard to maintain that level of vigilance against yourself sometimes.

Also, I don't mind reading an article (or opinion, or review or whatever) by someone with a distinct point of view as long as two things are operant: 1. the truth of the matter is more important to the writer than "being right"; in other words, the ability to learn is in effect and embraced; and 2. that the writer SHOW THEIR WORK.

I love Thomas Friedman, but I disagree with at least half of what he says, but that's alright, because although he's trying to convince, he's not trying to hoodwink. Another example, I can use ANY film reviewer to good effect if they 'show their work.' Ebert, for instance, is not valuable to me because I think he's right, but because he is relentlessly wrong. In other words, his POV is valuable to me -- not a liability -- because I can navigate by it. So does a writer have a point of view? No problem. But let them declare it, let them show their work and let them have faith that the truth is more important than their politics or ideology (after all if the truth is against them, what good is their politics or ideology or POV). And if they are true to the search, and find themselves wrong, hopefully they will own up to it.

Hope that made some sense.

[Andrew]

I had planned to post a comment on the purpose and limits of objectivity, but Curt beat me to it. Well, no need to waste all thise white space.

Maybe I am an idealist, maybe I don't want to believe the journalism education, for which I am now in debt to various federal and family entities, was worthless, but objectivity should not be sidleined for subjectivity regardless of whether people like it or not.

People like McDonald's but we're not suggesting they eat a super-size dbl quarter pounder meal every time they think they need a snack are we?

Objectivity is a means to an end. The Truth of a situation, a policy, an event is the end for which both objectivity and subjectivity are tools. A well-trained and dilligent reporter knows this and will be in the constant pursuit of taming these two ferocious beast in an effort to present the best possible facsimile of reality that his or her own human effort will allow.

Further, on the issue of subjective reporting, perhaps FOX is fueled by both it and the conservative base.

Consider:

The base tunes in and hears information slanted to their world-view and that satisfies their need for information. But the consistent and repeated listenings could be said to be due to their feelings of connection (be it good or bad) to the reporters.

just a thought...

Tracking back to Curt's point however, a good reporter will show their subjective work based on objective fact. FOX more often than not begats subjectivity with subjectivity which is not reporting but mere commentary.