Dangers of competitive journalism
Like just about every other literate American, I receive the
vast majority of my knowledge about the world through reading the
newspapers or occasionally watching CSPAN or MSNBC; like every
other American, everything I think I know about President Bush and
Martha Stewart was conveyed to me at one time or another through
one of these media. The entirety of public discourse is built
around information, and we primarily receive information from these
newspapers and television shows that we collectively call “the
news.”
All of this information, in all its variety, can in the end be
traced back to individuals who act as the gatekeepers for what we
know and what we do not. We know and love these individuals as
journalists. So long as we consider ourselves informed and
knowledgeable citizens, we are all dependent on these relatively
few people.
Why is it, then, that most of us think so little about who these
people are and whether they are trustworthy? The most obvious
answer is that it doesn’t matter who these people are as long as
they get the facts rights; when I read a report from Israel, I’m
more interested in what Ariel Sharon had to say than the opinions
of the reporter covering his speech. Our trust, so we assume, is
justified by the system of checks and editorial oversight that
assures the truthfulness of what goes in print or on the air.
So what are we supposed to think when we hear about esteemed
reporters being caught in the act of creating or “embellishing”
reports that are presented as news? This question, I’m sure, has
been around since the first printing press, but after three major
scandals at three respected publications in the last six years, I’m
starting to wonder whether our blind faith in the integrity of
journalists is something we can afford to maintain.
To get an idea of how this sort of thing happens, it would be
helpful to review these three situations briefly:
In 1998, a young and talented reporter named Stephen Glass
worked as an associate editor at the prestigious The New Republic
magazine – “The In-flight Magazine of Air Force One.” Glass was a
popular and charming individual, and was in fact so charming that
he was able to get over 30 articles published that were partially
or entirely made up (incidentally, a great movie about Glass’s
downfall called “Shattered Glass” just hit the movie stores). Glass
was fired upon being discovered and later wrote a novel about the
experience.
In 2003, the New York Times admitted that a field reporter named
Jayson Blair had made up sources, situations and facts in numerous
articles, and Blair was also fired. In response to massive (and
justified, I think) criticism against the paper, the top editors at
the Times resigned. Just last week, this situation was mirrored
when the top editor at the nation’s most widely read newspaper –
USA Today – resigned after foreign correspondent Jack Kelly was
fired for fabrications, etc.
It is important to notice that all three of these publications
are respected and widely read, and thus we can not answer the
question of how it is legitimate to rely upon journalistic
integrity by saying that the problem is limited to less important
texts. After all, if the editors of the New York Times cannot be
trusted to detect fabrications then who can?
This is not to say that the editors were to blame in these
cases; certainly, the pressures of publishing a daily (or weekly)
newspaper with interesting, relevant and factual content is a
challenging enough task as it is. Even fact-checkers must, when
they cannot independently verify something in a reporter’s piece,
place their faith in the reporter’s word and notes (which can also
be fabricated). So once again, the responsibility falls back on a
few individuals. To solve the problem of their trustworthiness, it
would seem, the first step would be to discover why these
journalists felt the need to fabricate facts and stories at
all.
I think the best answer to this problem lies in the fact that
journalists are businessmen (and women), and reporting is a
business much like any other, where there are incentives for
interesting pieces and facts and penalties for not coming up with
material. Glass, for instance, stated in an interview after his
discovery that he was addicted to the attention and praise he would
receive for his pieces, and thus felt he would let everyone down to
write anything less. Blair wrote a book in which he charged that
his methods were not only common, but also the tip of the iceberg
in reporter corruptness.
The downside of capitalism, as we all know, is that people will
and do go to any length to get ahead, to get promoted, etc. Thus, I
see what these reporters did as just another (and more disturbing)
manifestation of what the Enron executives or Martha Stewart did –
they used their wits to manipulate the business to their advantage.
Whereas Kenneth Lay cost people money, these journalists damaged
the credibility of an entire occupation.
This is a gross simplification of the issue, of course.
Furthermore, it doesn’t really solve anything. Recognizing the
dangers of competitive journalism is helpful, but I don’t see a
mass media socialist revolution on the horizon nor do I think
anyone desires one. So instead of making up an answer to please the
readers, I can only ask the questions and hope someone will restore
my ailing faith in the bearers of our news.
Brent is a freshman studying philosophy. His column runs every
Tuesday.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.