|
| |
YellowTimes.org Article''American journalism: Objectivity and
reverence''
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 00:05:28 CDT
Topic: Matthew Riemer
By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – A June 6th conversation on the National
Public Radio news show On the Media between host Brooke
Gladstone and guests Bill Falk and Jeremy O'Grady, executive
editors of the American and British editions of The Week,
highlighted important differences between American and British
journalism, and, more importantly, the sad state of affairs
currently being experienced by the American version of the
discipline.
Jeremy O'Grady, representing Britain's edition of The Week,
remarked that American journalists display a reverence for the
government and are often afraid to question the official line,
while British journalists are more skeptical and irreverent.
As an instructive case in point, O'Grady pointed to a piece by
New York Times columnist Judith Miller that was essentially
sanctioned by the Pentagon: a flimsy article, based entirely
on anonymous sources and Pentagon hearsay, seemingly printed
to keep the hopes alive of those who believe that huge stores
of WMD are still going to be unearthed in Iraq and to buoy
artificially the validity of the Bush administration's
rhetoric. To O'Grady, such a story reeked of professional
coziness the likes of which a Brit would never endure.
American journalism also seems to believe in a theoretical yet
attainable state of objectivity and strictly segregated
formats governing the presentation of opinion and fact --
that, in a way, journalism is more of a science which can be
practiced very exactly, not a profession of inherent bias. The
Brit is less afraid of opinion and more naturally embraces
slant and agendas as part and parcel of the journalistic,
historical process surrounding the recounting of events.
Bill Falk observed: "Here when you enter into the New York
Times or the Washington Post, it's entering into a cathedral.
Journalists -- particularly the commentators and the named
journalists are the high priests of the profession, and we
worship the truth, and there's this sense that in our country
the truth is a quantifiable, objective deity that you can put
borders around and say 'well, this is the truth and that's
opinion.'"
Such observations touch upon just a few of the characteristics
that make up a larger social and cultural phenomenon that acts
as a kind of "default setting" for American journalism --
those foundational, philosophical and moral beliefs that are
used to divine what has come to be perceived by a majority as
the "truth" or "objectivity."
This "default setting" is best defined by simply stating its
most common, and largely tacit, assumptions.
Democracy and capitalism are the ultimate realizations of
political and economic systems. This is arguably the bedrock
of American journalism. This belief commonly manifests itself
in the distrust and marginalization of any person or country
that is neither and a hyper-reverence for anything that is.
The United States is the rightful enforcer of global order.
The fact that the U.S. wanders the globe establishing a
military presence essentially anywhere it wishes, policing and
disciplining small countries that commit the smallest offense,
and consistently offending the sovereignty and cultural
identity of host nations is never questioned on its face. It
is allowable to debate "how" this process should proceed, but
never its very existence or legal or political basis.
The world needs to be helped by the U.S. This assumption is
quite nuanced because the real meaning is not that those under
duress need emotional and material aid to get back on their
feet again (charity, assistance) but that much of the world is
a "failure," and because of this, the U.S. is compelled,
though reluctantly, to straighten them out. So this "help"
isn't the giving of food to a poor country (of course, this is
done, but only along with subsidies) but instead is the
overthrow of a government seen undesirable by Washington. Such
a philosophy is perfectly captured by Henry Kissinger's
comments regarding Chile, "I don't see why we should have to
stand by and let a country go Communist due to the
irresponsibility of its own people." Very rarely do corporate
journalists ask, "What right do we have to be there in the
first place?"
The process known innocuously as "globalization" (really, in
economic terms, a kind of global and fully deregulated,
free-market capitalism) is at once beneficial, in fact needed
by the communities of the world, and an egalitarian system of
modernization. To argue that "globalization" is a class
sensitive benefactor -- enriching the rich and weakening the
poor -- or to question its legitimacy or long-term economical
soundness is anathema to American media. Of course, to
challenge globalization is essentially to challenge
capitalism.
America knows best. Regardless of who is involved, how distant
the land or the people, or the actual stake the American
people have in a given "crisis" or "situation," the United
States government is the sole, most reputable, and most
complete source of enlightenment on the subject. This
assumption is highlighted by both the American media's and
American people's general distrust, if not open contempt, for
virtually all foreign governments and foreign media. (This is
also partially caused by the overt rise in nationalism over
the past two years.)
Imperialism is a thing of the past and no longer exists even
in a hybridized form. This is, perhaps, the most laughable of
all the assumptions that one must be so careful not to disrupt
in polite conversation.
These attributes saturate current American journalism and are
the reason many journalists, news agencies, and people around
the world take the American media less and less seriously and
strongly question its impartiality -- especially when American
commentators and journalists speak so profoundly of the truth
and objectivity while throwing around supposed facts from the
Pentagon or State Department so carelessly.
Later in the interview, O'Grady remarked that "But I don't
think it's objectivity versus commentary, though I think that
distinction does exist within the press, but I don't think
it's the relevant distinction here. I think it's much more
reverence versus irreverence, in fact. I think there's a --
there's an irreverent tradition here where there is much more
likelihood that a journalist will not take the official line."
Regarding WMD, he said, "...there were quite a lot of facts
which could have been uncovered with greater diligence, I
suspect. Now what happened I think in the mainstream of
reporting over here, and by all accounts your side of the pond
as well, was that there wasn't much attempt to highlight the
dubious nature of these facts which is not part of commentary
but part of the reporting of facts as facts. What I perceive
to be the difference is an attitude of mind towards the
reporting of facts -- reverence versus irreverence."
These comments begin to explain the situation with American
journalism: objectivity has become reverence. It's as if an
unspoken rule is that any decent journalist should just accept
what the United States government public relations branch
tells them and that to question openly or conspicuously what
one is being told crosses into "advocacy journalism" -- even
when what one is being told is absolute nonsense. This,
combined with a dogmatic view of "the truth" and the paranoia
surrounding the concept of "opinion," has led to the
phenomenon of American news outlets sincerely believing they
are fair, balanced, and objective without interjecting any
spin or bias, when, in fact, they are bastions of advocacy,
selectivity, and slant. As a complement to this, it's a
frequently employed technique to label counter arguments or
views as "opinion."
In this light, then, there is a strong parallel with
Washington's foreign policy, as both American journalism and
foreign policy seem to exude a distinct air of infallibility
accompanied by an even more marked contempt for the opinions
of organizations and individuals who conceptualize and think
differently.
With each botched story the American media runs in its attempt
to titillate and scare viewers -- from dozens of misleading
reports about WMD to the Jessica Lynch rescue fiasco -- the
further down the drain the reputation and credibility of
American journalism will continue to plunge.
[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of
topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture,
and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five
years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the
midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is
the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the
United States.]
Matthew Riemer encourages your comments:
mriemer@YellowTimes.org
YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion
publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be
reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such
reproduction identifies the original source,
http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to
http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.
This article comes from YellowTimes.org
http://www.yellowtimes.org
The URL for this article is:
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1446
|