Centerfield

Acceptable Media Bias?

Susanna of Cut on the Bias has some provocative thoughts about press objectivity.

She thinks it's ok, and even desirable, for the press to "wholeheartedly support" military success in this war, and that they should also be wary of "digging for the negative", or "focusing on the negative".

I think she's right on some points, but I draw the line well before others.

First, just as a general proposition, why is it necessary for the media to "wholeheartedly support" the war? I understand that military success is something the vast majority of us will get behind, as a goal ... even many who opposed the war. Once we're in the war, it would seem that succeeding militarily is almost a no-brainer.

On the other hand, I do see folks around the country protesting the war every day. So maybe there is still an "issue" of sorts regarding whether our military should succeed (or, as some wish, just pull out).

I know it's almost irrisistable for news organizations to express support for the war, since that's what so many viewers want. But does that make it a good idea? To take sides in something that is, on some level, an issue?

And, as I asked up front, why is it necessary? News organizations can cover rallies in support of the war, interview folks who express that opinion, etc. The idea that most of us want to win the war can certainly come through. They can do all that without actually endorsing the war themselves. In other words, they can cover public sentiment without taking a position on it.

Makes room for us as a society to express support for the war through the media, without requiring reporters to jettison the sense of objectivity they should be trying to bring to each assignment.

Finally, I'd certainly challenge her on the following:

...digging for the negative, focusing on the negative, seeking opposition for the sake of having opposition, challenging the military commanders with questions that at best are ill-informed and at worst petulant or openly anti-war, damages both the likelihood of swifter success in the war and the reputation (such as it is) of journalism as a profession.

Part of this is certainly true -- the media should never on any story want to challenge experts with "ill-informed" questions, nor should their questions take an "anti-war" or any other consistent perspective. They are, however, going to ask a variety of questions, any of which might individually reflect a point-of-view. And they're certainly going to "dig for the negative", along with (hopefully) digging for the positive. They're certainly going to "focus on the negative" at times ... though they should treat it proportionately (many times they don't).

I guess my overall sense is that Susanna is basically asking for a biased press with a point-of-view. We have that, at present, both on the left and the right. I think we'd be better off if more of the press actually managed to set more of their pre-concieved notions aside when making choices on how to report a story.

We're seeing an example of what distinctly biased press can do in the form of Al Jazeera and it's role in fomenting anger in the Arab world today. I think their coverage goes father over the cliff of "advocacy journalism" than our domestic press does. But it does give you pause, and make you wonder just what's wrong with reporters refraining from adopting an opinion when filing a story. And how far things can go when the popular news organization everyone's watching decides to just reinforce its audience's views.

It's intellectually lazy, in my opinon ... as well as presenting us with all kinds of potential dangers if we go down that road.

Posted by Blogadmin at April 2, 2003 07:58 PM