How the news media manipulate news as a normal part of business

“It’s a bizarre world where flacks are more vigilant than reporters
when it comes to trying not to mislead readers.”
– JOHN COOK, Gawker
“The Spitzer Files: How the New York Times and the Press Serviced Client No. 9”

The American Left’s favorite punching bag – Sarah Palin – should, at the least, be thanked for one thing: her ability to draw out the nastiness of her media critics. Palin’s shortcomings, which are many, help elicit inherent problems with news media reporting that might otherwise go unnoticed. There’s something about Palin that emboldens news media to go out of their way to misconstrue news or to simply create a kind of context that might not otherwise exist. Palin makes a good target, one that media will quickly and somewhat cavalierly defend their actions against after going on the attack.

We’re not talking, necessarily, left- or right-wing bias. Nor is this “news” of the demagogic type exemplified by the increasingly omnipresent partisan news media outlets. The bias exhibited against Palin and many other public figures is inherent in the news journalism business.

It is, in fact, the business-as-usual modus operandi of news reporting that is flawed and is too often seemingly incapable of maintaining accurate context for what happens in real life. It’s not just partisan “news” that is problematic; it is the news business in general that is fraught with potentials to drive innuendo and encourage misinterpretation and misinformation.

Palin and many public officials unfortunately know this too well. What is most striking about her recent appearance on the cover of Newsweek magazine is the defense by Newsweek to justify context creation, despite the potential illegalities of reproducing that particular photo in the first place. Newsweek insisted that its choice of cover photos was appropriate. Editor Jon Meacham said,

“We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do.”

Which is why what constitutes news is deceptive. It routinely (re)defines context and frames agendas FOR us rather than taking a stricter stance of merely reporting information. It is an attitude in which reporters deem — influenced no doubt by their training in journalism schools — they are qualified to shape context. Meacham, like many journalists, is cavalier in assuming the journalist’s role, irrespective of ingrained assumptions that insert reporters into a process of decision making for the presumed benefit of countless others.

David Barker, staff writer for the State News and a reporter presumably fresh out of journalism school — which perhaps gives him the benefit of clearer reflection on the journalistic process — puts it this way:

“As reporters, we aren’t simply people who regurgitate facts. We gather information and test its veracity. Our job requires that we interpret and shape information — contextually and factually — for the reader.

“Our job is to tell stories, to make facts relevant, but never to skew them.”

But the process of interpreting and shaping information is precisely what begins the progression of skewing information, deliberately or otherwise. Barker basically admits to this but quickly attempts to soften the reporting reality by denying that interpretation has the potential to skew. He continues:

“We have a code of ethics because our jobs require us to decide not only what is essential, but pertinent.

“After that, it’s up to the reader to decide.”

Inserting yourself into the position of deciding what’s relevant is the first place where bias initially occurs. Researchers know this, which is why double-blind studies are so critical. By taking themselves out of the equation, scientists reduce the potential for bias. Reporters on the other hand are ingrained in the filtering process. Barker, at least, is refreshingly honest about his role. His colleagues, however, seem too often to lack this characteristic.

Such is the case with the process of attempting to correct news, let alone context. Media personnel enact an essentially black-and-white moral obligation of speaking for the masses with a frequent disregard for their own accountability in fulfilling the “watchdog” role. It may be possible to get factual mistakes corrected in the news, usually a day or two later and with far less prominence than the original errors were committed, but adequate corrections are questionable, as the site Regret the Error frequently points out.

So what happens when context is incorrect or distorted? Not much. Reporters and editors are typically quick to respond defensively when called onto the carpet for miscontextualizations, as the Newsweek/Palin example shows.

The reason for this is because it is the business of journalism to reshape reality according to preconceived notions by and for journalists and their editors.

* * *

This series of posts, called “And they call US spin doctors?” examines just how business-as-usual journalism is fraught with potentials for misinformation, leading to the conclusion that information shapers of all stripes — in particular, reporters and their editors — are unwittingly, or not, significant players in the process of misleading the public. The series is extensively researched and uses real-life, current examples of news outlets deliberately misconstruing news to be more salacious. The series runs for six weeks.

Part 2 will cover how news organizations are structured and how this influences practices that lead to misinformation.