Reporters on defense

“To say that the press brought down Nixon, that’s horseshit.”
– Bob Woodward, The Washington Post

To public officials, the role of the news business is obvious. We see the process of information shaping first hand, warts and all. But ask a journalist their perspective of their role, and the reaction will likely be different.

A public official being openly critical of the news media is quickly spun by journalists to mean that reporters must being doing the right thing. Conversely, journalists keeping public officials on their toes is considered a noble, expected calling of the news business, one that media outlets use to promote upcoming news.

The logic is fascinating.

Reporters are sometimes quick to minimize their role in news process despite adequate research that suggests they are noted players in the misinformation game. The notable Bob Woodward, despite his list of extensive credits, believes the press’ role is somewhat limited. In response to the contention that his and Carl Berstein’s reporting on the Nixon administration was part of why Nixon resigned, he is adamant:

“To say that the press brought down Nixon, that’s horseshit,” he says. “The press always plays a role, whether by being passive or by being aggressive, but it’s a mistake to overemphasize” the media’s coverage.

Woodward is not alone as a journalist trying to minimize his role in shaping information, policy or even the impact of his own reporting. When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s term ended, he unleashed a scathing critique of the news media. Despite being ill-advised, his points were frequently on the mark, and not so surprisingly, the media fallout was predictable: Journalists rushed to twist his critique into self-validation that they had done right.

One editor, Simon Kelner, said Blair’s critique was a direct “attack” on the U.K. Independent, and snapped back: “Would you be saying this, Mr. Blair, if we supported your war in Iraq?”

A local example serves to illustrate the same point. Rather than address the criticism, a diversionary issue is strung up the counter the critique. My commentary here was linked liberally on Facebook by various people involved with the Reno area’s re-branding effort and by those who were merely in support of the effort.

I wrote:

“Your local news media should bear the brunt of that responsibility for repeatedly ignoring the campaign’s developments for months only to take a slice of grandstanding by an elected official and turn that into a loaded headline (well, a few loaded headlines, as the headlines keep changing depending on the spin of the moment the editors want to take with the story) guaranteed to incite readers and encourage misunderstanding of a brand roll-out.”

Naturally, some journalists were tuning in. And they were shocked and dismayed to learn they were being criticized. One, a news radio personality, said, “Blaming the media is a cop out.” Another wrote: “Seriously, Bob? It’s the media’s fault?”

Had the text not been read? Are reporters above criticism? Do reporters actually believe they are merely the messengers of presumed facts? Do they not see how they shape information and therefore influence context and set agendas?

Their dismay was perplexing. Either they really don’t pay attention to what people really think about them, or perhaps they are really that ignorant as to the true role they play in the information dissemination game.

There is considerable research that supports the fact that the news media are in fact agenda setters, and as I pointed out in the first post of this series, the mere act of deciding what is and is not news, as well as what level of importance news items receive, is the first step in shaping context.

And as part two of this series mentioned, social media is leveling the journalistic playing field, presenting a conundrum to old-guard journalists. David Myers, communications professor at Loyola University New Orleans, puts it this way:

“But now, all of sudden, the news comes out everywhere.  If someone has a blog, the news comes out there.  If someone has a mobile phone, the news comes out.  If someone has a Twitter account, out comes the news.

“This is a big problem for journalists, particularly for those journalists — and their bosses — who are concerned about their status.  So those journalists and those bosses get a little defensive.  And when their banners go belly up, and when their bylines fade into he said and she said, those journalists and those bosses stand fast and defend their status.

“Those journalists say, hey, I’m a journalist and you’re not.  I get to use your stuff in my news, but you don’t get to use my stuff in yours.  And if any one of you bloggers or tweeters or cellphoners breaks a story and I report that story, guess who gets the Peabody?  Who gets the Pulitzer?  I do.  Because it’s my news.  Because I’m a journalist and you’re not.

“And if I’m reporting a really important story (like the Iran election protests, for instance), and if I’m writing under a really important banner (like The New York Times, for instance), and if I’ve got a really important byline (like Andrew Sullivan above the fold, for instance), then I’m a journalist and you’re not.  You (like http://iran.robinsloan.com/, for instance) are just an ‘aggregator.’

“Well.

“I would feel a whole lot better about journalists (and their bosses) getting defensive if journalists paid more attention to the function than the status of their journalism.  And I would feel best of all if journalism functioned.”

So either journalists have impact or they do not. To take credit in the limelight is one thing; to disavow impact when criticized is something else entirely. Even more so, as the response to Tony Blair showed, members of the news media are often lacking in honest self-reflection.

A series of articles about Blair’s speech in the journal The Political Quarterly echoed at least one aspect of Blair’s critique: “What is required is a more self-questioning media, being held to account on the internet and on specialist blogging sites,” the article’s abstract says.

Self-questioning, however, is but a starting point.

* * *

This series of posts, called “And they call US spin doctors?” examines 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. Read part 1, 2, 3 and 4.