Thursday, August 24, 2006

Journalism and the Truth

CBS Anchor-to-be, Katie Couric

Researching for my thesis, I'm going through a pile of books on media in America and I came across a salient observation in "News from Nowwhere: Television, and the News" by Edward Jay Epstein. Back in the late sixties, Epstein was granted near complete access to the inner workings of the "Big Three" networks, NBC, CBS and ABC. His goal was to determine just what went into the selection process that lead to the broadcasting of this or that particular story on national news. One of the many interesting points he makes is that in broadcast news, gone are the days when the objective of the journalist was to "get to the bottom" of the story. Rather today, the objective has become achieving a perfect balance in presenting a story. While it's arguable as to whether or not news today is presented in a truly balanced fashion, (I would strongly argue that it isn't) the point is that the focus on presenting both sides of the story has replaced any idea of getting to the bottom of the story. According to most journalists, truth lies in the middle of the debate and will inevitably emerge once both sides clash in some sort of journalisitic Hegelian dialectic; antithesis and synthesis will naturally produce the desired result. As Epstein notes,

"This model of 'pro and con' reporting is perfectly consistent with the usual notion of objectivity-if objectivity is defined, as it is by most of the correspondents interviewd, as 'telling both sides of the story.' It can however seriously conflict with the value that journalists place on investigative reporting, the purpose of which is 'getting to the bottom' of an issue or 'finding the truth,' as correspondents put it." He concludes by noting that as a result, "any attempt to resolve a controversial issue and find 'the truth' can become self-defeating."

Surprisingly, within the same week of reading this passage from Epstein, Rush Limbaugh said the following on his radio show,

"They (the media) always...have to present both sides, and that is considered balance. But nowhere in there is an effort to find the truth. The theory is that the truth is somewhere in the middle, that you can't trust advocates or witnesses on either side of an event. And journalists dig deep, and they get to the very middle...Truth simply doesn't always reside in the middle."

I think it's a worthy point to consider. The media is absolved from any obligation to seriously search for the truth if it can assert that it has done its job by presenting both sides of the arguement. This allows the media to wash its hands of the messy business of serious discussion and thought while meaningless talking-points and sound bites from the dueling parties are tossed back and forth. Then the media can pat itself on the back for a job well done.

No comments:

Post a Comment