Media Responsibility (75 posts)
60. Opinion
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 5:06 PM/EST
Gayle
I think Henry is wrong and has been wrong, and may even continue to go on being wrong. But that's my personal opinion.
I think the true investigative members of the media are supposed to be the seekers of the truth. And we should be the sorters of the truth.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a keeper because truth is so open to individual interpretation.
61. Seekers and Sorters
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 5:21 PM/EST
JimP
I like that image. It illustrates exactly the relationship that I think we need to have.
Thanks, Jim
62. Truth keepers?
Sat, Feb 13, 1999 - 11:25 AM/EST
McRostie
I don't think so Jim, and Gayle, I'm not even sure about 'sorters".
Let's not confuse "truth" with "facts". What we call fact is all too often no more than reasonably supported, informed opinion. As such, it is still subject to debate and contradiction.
"Truth" as a word has a quality of theological meaning that to me, militates against any person or group being its "keeper" or even "sorter" for other's "benefit".
Henry with his "keepers of the truth" statement made the mistake of confusing truth and fact. It was not his original error quite obviously. The obligation of the Press is, to me, simply one of providing information, and in the process making clear the difference between unassailable physical fact and informed opinion. Opinion is not fact, regardless of how many times it may be expressed. Reliance on the "Big Lie" theory of argument has not proved too reliable.
Regards, McRostie
63. I think...
Sat, Feb 13, 1999 - 4:02 PM/EST
Gayle
we're talking 'idealistically', McRostie. I go by the old saying: "Don't believe everything you hear or read."
64. Idealistically?
Sat, Feb 13, 1999 - 4:29 PM/EST
McRostie
You lost me with that one Gayle. I must be denser than usual today. Please amplify.
Regards, McRostie
65. Truth versus Fact
Sun, Feb 14, 1999 - 6:24 PM/EST
JimP
The differentiating idea, to me is that mankind should continue to seek the truth, even when it is so amorphous as in a Creator. Therefore, there are persons who are the seekers of the truth. Most realize that it is an endless quest.
The facts may also be less that bedrock, or at the very least subject to interpretation. The statement that the victorious write the history books is an example where the facts are changed afterwards in order to fit the victor's interpretation. I think that Vietnam, and even portions of WW II, are examples.
The media are less seekers than sorters. When you think about it though, sorters has the inherent image of making decisions. A hospital triage team make decisions about those who can and canot be saved. They "sort" the incoming into three sets.
The media must, by definition, do the same thing. There is no way all that comes into a newsroom can be reported. What I ask of the media is to tell me these things.
1. What are the criteria used in making the decisions.
2. Who is involved in the decision process.
3. Include elements of the news that is reported that provide enough information that I can decide for myself what to believe, and how to take action. In other words, tell me as much as possible about both sides. Quoting a portion of McRostie's post - "... making clear the difference between unassailable physical fact and informed opinion." Where we may differ hereis that I am less and less sure that any fact is unassailable.
With more thought, I could probably list other things I want to know, but that will do as a starter.
I also want to write something about the media's recognition of its present low esteem in the public, but that will not fit here.
Regards,
Jim
66. Media's understanding of itself
Sun, Feb 14, 1999 - 8:34 PM/EST
JimP
I was listening to NPR's morning program Saturday. Daniel Schorr was talking, presenting his views of the week. He was asked several questions, two answers really interested me. First, he was asked something along the line of whether he thought that the impeachment hearings would be a part of the political life in the future, and second, what he thought of the effect on the media in the future.
Now, you literalists remember, I'm not quoting, and may be mistaken, but a day plus later, here are my remembrances about his answers. Correct me if I'm vastly wrong; if slightly wrong, forget it.
To the first, he said that we will have to see, over time. It seemed that he thought neither the public or the Congress would be severely afflicted in the future by these hearings. If either body would be harmed, it may be the House.
To the second, he said something close to the idea that the media had been the most severely wounded by the impeachment hearings. He thought that the media would be examining its role, and that their relationship with the public was severely injured. He thought that it would take the media the longest time to recover.
How universal among media persons do you folk think is this premise? Do the majority of them even recognize that they have a problem?
How important is it that they do so? What can the media do to regain the confidence of the public?
Regards,
Jim
67. response to jim's ?s
Mon, Feb 15, 1999 - 1:05 PM/EST
eireann
when will the media regain anything they lost during their "coverage" of the impeachment mess? when they stop the salacious reporting they've become so skilled at and actually start reporting real news in an educated way. newspapers (i'll say nothing of TV) seem to be just like the majority of public schools today - they base their product on its appeal to and ability to be understood by the lowest common denominator.
i'm not saying this to be snooty, though it's probably coming across that way. i think i'm only recognizing what is and has been a problem for some time. there is currently a big debate about this sort of thing going on where my parents live. by writing curriculum, for example, that is simple enough it can be easily understood by every student in the class, are you reinforcing the "slower" students, giving them confidence, etc., or are you shortchanging the brighter ones? my answer would be both, and i would add that i'm strongly in favor of tiered class subjects. not everyone is smart, and even more, not everyone is smart in every subject. so why not give every student the chance to learn according to their ability per subject? that way you're not ignoring those that need more help, yet you're not shortchanging those that can suceed in faster-paced courses.
i'm digressing big time, i know. but my point is that the media seemed to have instigated it's own "tier" structure to news reporting...daily newspapers and newsweeklies for those most interested in hard news, TV news for those with less time or that did better with images and shorter, flashier stories. nothing wrong with that at all. but now it's hard to escape the "flashiness" of the TV news, even in formerly reputable newspapers or magazines. i guess they're under too much pressure to sell copy and get advertising. that's a pretty sad state. and they're not going to get "respect" back from those that used to read newspapers because they felt papers concentrated more on the facts and the actual story than the glossy details until they stop concentrating on the glossy details and go back to real reporting.
i have more to say on this subject, but i'll put it in another post so i don't bore you all to death.
-eireann
68. extreme semantic nitpickiness
Mon, Feb 15, 1999 - 1:09 PM/EST
eireann
i realize that hyde probably had a much larger meaning under his catch phrase about the media now needing to be "keepers of the truth," but "keepers?" should the truth really be "kept?"
what good is it if it is "kept," particularly by an institution with the type of reputation the media has?
i would argue that true "truth" (to distinguish it form the various words that have been floating around in earlier posts - facts, information, and so on) should not be "kept" but, rather, "shared."
it's my opinion that "keeping" truth, particularly in a matter as controversial as this one, can only lead to a thousand more problems.
-eireann
69. interesting article relevant to this thread
Mon, Feb 15, 1999 - 1:17 PM/EST
eireann
A co-worker recently read and abstracted the article mentioned in my next post (I couldn't put it all in here because of the length). I thought her abstract might be interesting to the rest of the group, considering some of the recent posts. The author disagrees with a lot of the points I made in my second-to-last post, but what is this forum for if not differing points of view?
I may have to divide the article into two separate posts. Sorry for the length; ignore it if you want! :)
-eireann
70. the abstract
Mon, Feb 15, 1999 - 1:17 PM/EST
eireann
"David Weaver addresses the question of what information voters glean from the media by focusing on the media’s role in agenda setting. His research indicates the veracity of Bernard Cohen’s quotation, “the press any not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers that to think about” (37). The media achieves this by prioritizing public views in the areas of issues, candidates, and images.
"Research has demonstrated that there is a “strong correlation between the media rankings of issues and voters’ ranking of these issues” (37). Likewise, the media has an agenda of “candidates, ranked in terms of how much coverage they receive, and an agenda of characteristics of candidates, some emphasized more than others” (38-39). Finally, voters find it “easier to learn about candidate images rather than about issues, especially personality traits and styles of the candidates rather than job qualifications and ideology” (39). Related to this information, researchers found prior knowledge, high interest, and frequent media exposure correlate with learning candidate images.
"The actual issue positions of the candidates themselves are learned in a manner that goes beyond agenda setting because learning issue positions is a more demanding task for voters. Television is increasingly becoming the primary means of learning candidate issue positions. In fact, “viewing television news is a fairly consistent predictor of knowing the issue stands of candidates across elections” (40). However, “the influence of televised commercials has fluctuated from one campaign to another” (40). (Note: These findings, which were from research conducted in 1984, 1988, 1990, and 1992, contradict findings from research on the 1972 election. Thus, they suggest that a change has occurred in the way voters use television for obtaining issue stand information).
"Aside from television, newspapers have been shown to increase voters’ political knowledge in virtually every study conducted on this topic. Candidate debates, however, “are not likely to influence candidate evaluations or intentions much” and are helpful only “to undecided voters who are more interested in specific issues than in party affiliation and who pay close attention to them” (41). For those voters who do pay attention, debates have a large educational impact, and have been shown to be a strong “predictor of knowledge of the candidates’ positions on the issues” (41). New media forms like radio and television talk shows have little significance in impacting voter knowledge.
Weaver also addresses the impact knowledge has upon voting behavior. He states that a shift has occurred in the factors deemed significant in voting: “recently, the strongest predictors of voting have been political party identification and knowledge of issue stands,” rather than the candidate images found in analysis of the 1976 elections (43). Further, Weaver posits that the most important role of the media in voter learning may not be the learning that occurs right before an election, but in the periods in between elections. He states:
Information does not lead immediately to attitude change, because the cognitive
aspects of political attitudes typically are
built up slowly. In addition, the stability
of cognitive systems acts as a brake
on attitude change, especially among those
more knowledgeable about politics. If a
shift in basic political opinions and
attitudes does occur, it is likely to be
gradual. . . . (43)
71. You've said a lot, eireann.
Mon, Feb 15, 1999 - 5:34 PM/EST
JimP
Let's take 'tiering' as a starter. I am sure there are tiers. For instance, USA Today could be the surface tier of newspapers. It doesn't provide a great dal of depth. A second tier may be the majority of the newspapers in the nation. They have a news staff and have some depth about the local news. A third tier could be the larger, national newspapers.e, the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. are examples of this level. They write more depth pieces about national and international news. Another tier could be the international news organizations, cuch as Associated Press, and UPI. The British have an excellent international news organization.
It is, I think, usually the second and third tier that are most accused of biased reporting. The Post, for instance, has always, or at least since Watergate, been a liberal newspaper.
Tiering occurs in other news organizations than newspapers. Some magazines contain much more depth and analysis than others.
McRostie said something above that the news organizations have to tell us when what they are producing is 'analysis' and what is information. I agree. Plus, I want to know something about the person(s) doing the analysis. It is still true that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Simply giving me statistics and data is insufficient.
Now, to truth. I think we are not discussing truth as much as we are keepers. You seem to be using the word in the sense of holding or protecting. I see keepers more as maintaining, enlarging, or providing - tending, a "bee keeper."
The abstract. Very interesting. I think that it says more about the consumers than it does the media. It gives an insight into the way we learn about candidates from the news media. I am particularly interested in the last paragraph. "...cognitive aspects of political attitudes typically are built up slowly. ... If a shift in basic political opinions and attitudes does occur, it is likely to be gradual..." I agree, but I would hasten to add that gradual is itself relative. The political attitude between the mid sixties and the mid seventies changed dramatically, and again from the mid seventies to the late eighties and early nineties. For those of us older than 55, ten years is not gradual. It is, or at least seems to be, a mere sliver of time.
I'm so glad you're posting again. Thanks heaps.
Regards,
Jim
72. Eireann's "not kept"
Tue, Feb 16, 1999 - 9:51 AM/EST
McRostie
Eireann's disagreement with Mr. Hyde I can agree with. Considering Hyde's political background, his "larger meaning" was keeping the faith, i.e. truth, in accordance with traditional conservative Christian beliefs. That idea is a bit too exclusionary for my taste.
Regards, McRostie
73. quick quote
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 5:34 PM/EST
eireann
I read this this morning and thought it was pretty relevant to our earlier discussion in this thread:
"In most political settings the search is not for "truth" or final vindication; rather, there are many truths, reflecting the multiplicity of experiences and stories that bring diverse groups into politics. The challenge is finding appropriateness, fit, agreement, adjucation, and provisional resolution of pressing concerns. In a problem-solving public, there are few saints or sinners but rather an interplay among a variety of interests, values, and ways of looking at experience. Knowledge is not simply divided between technical rationality on the one side and the search for understanding on the other."
-Harry Boyte, "Beyond Deliberation: Citizenship as Public Work"
