|
Jewish World Review / July 6, 1998 / 12 Tamuz, 5758
Cal Thomas
News unfit to
THOSE WITH A CONSERVATIVE WORLDVIEW will not be shocked at
the recent reports of lying by some elements of the
mainstream press. For years conservatives have complained
about the declining quality and one-sidedness of much that
passes for modern journalism. Now, in addition to perceived
political bias, comes an outbreak of gross factual errors that
could have been avoided had traditional journalistic norms
been observed.
A joint CNN-Time magazine effort about U.S. soldiers
nerve-gassing American defectors in Laos appears to have
been concocted to serve the political and career objectives of
some of its creators. CNN on Thursday (July 2) retracts the
story and takes sole responsibility for the broadcast and print
versions of the story. A Boston Globe columnist is fired for
fabricating stories and quotes. The New Republic terminates a
"hot young writer" for similarly making up parts of 27
articles. The Cincinnati Enquirer dismisses a reporter who
wrote a story about the company that sells Chiquita bananas,
saying it practiced "deceitful, unethical and unlawful
conduct." The newspaper agrees to pay the company $10
million and publishes a front-page apology.
There have been several explanations for these and other
press shortcomings. Among them is the desire to be first and
to get noticed in the increasingly noisy and diverse media
field. On that score, I recall something former NBC White
House correspondent Ray Scherer once said to me: "I try to
be first with the story, but not at the expense of being wrong."
It appears that this principle no longer applies.
The standards once held by most journalists have changed
dramatically. When I started out as a copyboy at NBC News
in Washington in 1961, I was told that to get on the air I
would need newspaper or wire-service experience. At the
very least I would have to learn the business from the
bottom-up. Later at a local station, I covered city hall, the
police beat and school board meetings. I made small mistakes
in out-of-the-way places. My "teachers" were the best in the
business. I watched them and learned. I had editors who took
seriously their responsibility of fact-checking. There were
written and unwritten codes of professional behavior.
Today, anybody with a pretty face (and some whose faces are
not so pretty but who can generate ratings) can go on the air
and read what someone else has written. Newspapers
compete for their share of a dwindling audience and
sometimes exhibit the bad character traits of their electronic
cousins. In television, field reporters now take with them
producers and other staff who mostly put stories together. At
NBC in the '60s, reporters had to write and produce their
own stuff. Then, journalism was thought of as a craft. Now,
it's a profession or, worse, a business.
There's another reason for these recent outrages. Most of the
big media subscribe to certain prejudices. They include, but
are not limited to, biases about big corporations (they are
evil), white people (they are racists until proved otherwise),
males (they are sexists), Republicans (they are shills for big
business and insensitive to the poor), the seriously religious
(they are ignorant) and America (a bad country that does bad
things to innocent people). One finds traces of these
prejudices in much mainstream reporting and in several of
the recent stories about unethical behavior by journalists.
When the media speak of "diversity," they are not talking
about diversity of opinion, only different faces and genders
delivering the same one-sided viewpoint. Listen closely to the
way interviewers question someone whose opinions they like.
Then observe the way they question someone whose opinions
they don't like. The tone is completely different. Their body
language also reflects their viewpoints.
Whenever the big media face charges of bias or other
shortcomings, they are quick to absolve themselves of
wrongdoing. There are many ways to lie or "shade the truth"
in the news profession. The most extreme cases can get you
fired. The less extreme can win you an
print (or broadcast)
6/30/98: Smoke gets in their eyes
6/25/98: Sugar and Spice Girls
6/19/98: William Perry opposed
technology transfers to China
6/19/98: The Clinton hare vs.the Starr tortoise
6/17/98: The President's rocky road to China
6/15/98: Let the children go
6/9/98: Oregon: the new killing fields
6/5/98: Speaking plainly: the cover-up continues
6/2/98: Barry Goldwater: in our hearts
5/28/98:The Speaker's insightful remarks
5/26/98: As bad as it gets
5/25/98:Union dues and don'ts
5/21/98:
Connecting those Chinese campaign
contribution dots
5/19/98: Clinton on the couch
5/13/98:
John Ashcroft: another
Jimmy Carter?
5/8/98: Terms of dismemberment
5/5/98: Clinton's tangled Webb
4/30/98: Return of the Jedi
4/28/98: Desparately seeking Susan
4/23/98: RICO's threat to free-speech and expression
4/21/98: Educating children v. preserving an institution
4/19/98: Analyzing the birth of a possible new nation
4/14/98: What's fair about our tax system?
4/10/98: CBS: 'Touched by a perv'
4/8/98: Judge Wright's wrong reasoning on sexual harassment
4/2/98: How about helping American cities before African?
3/31/98:Revenge of the children
3/29/98: The Clinton strategy: delay, deceive, deny, and destroy
3/26/98: Moralist Gary Hart
3/23/98: CNN's century of (liberal) women
3/17/98: Dandy Dan
3/15/98: An imposed 'settlement' settles nothing
3/13/98: David Brock's Turnabout