Tag Archives: Jay Rosen

Objectivity Is Concensus. Truth is Persuasion.

Are there questions political reporters shouldn’t try to answer? Michael Scherer of Time magazine seems to think so.

Determining which politicians are being misleading involves unreliable subjective judgment. Because no objective metric exists to sniff out deception, reporters are better off not tackling the subject.

He’s basically saying Fox News fact checkers will pummel Obama. And MSNBC fact checkers will crush Romney. So it’s best that reporters not call out politicians and just report the news.

…I feel I can say with confidence that the likelihood that someone believes they know who is misleading more is directly related to their own partisan feelings in this campaign. There are just too many subjective judgements that have to be made to come to any conclusion, and as I point out in my piece, we are predisposed to forgive those deceivers that share our worldviews and punish those who do not.

John McQuaid of Forbes disagrees. Just because something is hard to answer, that is, not able to be proven using numbers, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother to answer.

That a question is difficult, and in this case super-controversial, are certainly powerful incentives not to make judgments. But I don’t think that makes this question effectively impossible to address. Moreover, to put such a question off-limits is arbitrary. Why this question, and not thousands of other subjective questions that have no empirical “answers” that are entirely routine in campaign reportage?

If you’ve been reading Draper’s Den, you’ll know that I think the first perspective is barf-worthy status quo horse-race news garbage, and that the second perspective describes the kind of stuff Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow do.

Yes, their judgments are subjective. They do not pretend to be cyborg-news readers without opinions or preferences or judgments. But they do their best to guide you through their thinking. You don’t have to agree with their conclusions, on which politicians are liars or what campaign is being phony, but they show you how they themselves got there. With video evidence and quotes and cultural observation they walk you through their thought process.

It’s called critical thinking.

In this kind of journalism objectivity is not pretending to remain neutral, it’s not depicting false equivalency, or acting “dumb” by merely stating what “he said” and what “she said.” Objectivity becomes forging a consensus: Trying to get everyone’s subjective opinion to mesh with yours because your descriptions are useful, insightful and open to criticism.

In this kind of journalism truth is not some magical representation of what’s REALLY REAL. It’s not merely reporting the news with a flat tone, devoid of the first person. The truth is not just quoting experts and citing studies. Truth becomes the most accurate and persuasive and useful description. We say things are “true” because we want people to believe us, to join us, to get others to do things. And the truth emerges when descriptions are agreed upon, when predictable outcomes occur, when facts “check out.”

Journalists need to define themselves as assertive, critical thinking story tellers, not just purveyors of campaign happenings, hiding behind bullshit ideas like objectivity.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Jon Stewart As Debate Moderator: Fact-Checking, Subjectivity And A Future For Political Journalism

CNN’s Candy Crowley will moderate the 2nd presidential debate.  It will be in the infamous “town hall” setting, the one where “everyday” Americans (shitty haircut + struggling small business +  improbable accent) ask pre-vetted questions and the candidates stare into their mom-jean souls as they spit back slightly personalized rote talking points and reveal to the audience at home just how compassionate, intelligent and beer worthy they are.  (I’ll initiate the first Twitter joke: What the hell is a town hall?)

On Thursday night,  after Mitt Romney’s convincing “Robots can cry, too!” speech, CNN cut to Ms. Crowley and foreshadowed the tone of the incoming October debate. Paraphrasing here: “Well, the speech was good, but not earth shattering, and I spoke to two Romney camp people and they told me that convention speeches are supposed to be kinda shitty like this and, yeah, so what if he didn’t propose anything susbtantive…he doesn’t have to.”  It was as if she was doing an E! red carpet fashion critique with Joan Rivers, instead of, you know, making sense of the speech from a man who may become president. 

Watching her report on the convention, in the way that too many journalists do, commenting solely on the efficacy of campaign marketing and saying precious little on the validity of policy arguments, it wasn’t hard to imagine how she would moderate the debate: Wow, Mr. Obama, that was an eloquently phrased answer on not closing Gitmo, but who am I to evaluate the truth-claims of your legal policy? I’m just a political journalist, after all!  …Mr. Romney, who is your favorite character on Modern Family?” 

Given even more attention recently through the development of the fact-checking fiasco radiating from the Romney/Ryan campaign, media writer Mathew Ingram and journalism professor Jay Rosen’s critiques on political coverage are essential reading.  To summarize:

Romney and Ryan have been talking serious amounts of shit about Obama, much of it outright lies.  Rather than reporting it as: “Romney camp said this, but Obama camp said that,” several news outlets have explicitly called out the Romney camp: LIARS!  While you may think this is not unusual, most political journalists (Rosen says 95%) write and speak in what is called “he said/she said journalism.” 

This brand of coverage adopts a view from nowhere, and hides behind something called “objectivity” which, after watching too much CNN, reporters take to mean endlessly qualifying everything you say so that you end up saying nothing but what other people have said.  (After watching someone barf at a frat party Wolf Blitzer’s “objective” report would sound something like: “Good evening. I just spoke to two expert party-goers and they told me that a person just produced a pile of unprocessed food debris on what appears to be carpet.  However, after speaking with the person who allegedly vommed, he told me that the giant stain from undigested beer and cheeseburger was already there when he got to the party.  I, of course, was here as well, but in my pathetic attempt to appear balanced and objective I will rely on other people’s accounts even when their comments are blatantly self serving  and do nothing to help the viewer understand what is going on…Back to you.”)  

Miserable political reporting manifests in other ways too: You are already familiar with “horserace” coverage, where polls and tactics are privileged over all else.  There is also reporting on “insider gamesmanship,” (or, what Rosen identifies as the entirety of Politico.com’s content) where all reporters talk about is how effectively politicians fooled us, how deftly they dodged criticism, how slick their incoded messages were, how easily they manipulated the audience into focusing on some side issue instead of, ummm… how the oceans are about to boil. 

So, the media took one Jon Basedow baby step forward by calling out Romney, but then Romney’s people essentially said: “Yes ok, you caught us, but shitting on Obama with lies is working.  Now go beat off into a sock, media! ”  The question for political writers and readers then became: now what?

If most coverage is nothing but slurping up the savvyness of campaigns, can we eventually develop a type of journalism and viewership that cultivates not deference but critical thought? Rosen thinks so, and he sees a small but important change brewing, he calls it #presspushback .  (It’s when the lies or deceptions of politicians becomes its own story, when the press begins to see itself less as a purveyor of campaign information and more like an arbiter of the nation’s conversation.) 

We view it most nights with Rachel Maddow, in many of Frank Rich’s political columns, and we see it, in glimpses, on The Daily Show  (The interviews where Stewart gnaws on Jim Cramer’s bulbous skull or pisses on Tony Blair’s royal grin are especially good.  Consider also the famous clips during Katrina when Shep Smith goes bizerk on Sean Hannity or when Anderson Cooper and Tim Russert absolutely pwn incompetent government officials.)

This type of political journalism is aggressive, assertive and honest.  Rather than pretending to be inanimate observers, using the spectre of objectivity as an excuse to act dumb and not form conclusions, this kind of journalism is concerned with evaluating truth-claims, it treats the viewer like a critically thinking student rather than a consumer of political marketing product.  This type of political journalism is unafriad of bias accusations; we know Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart are liberals but they do their best to guide us through their internal deliberation; they are transparent about being intelligent adults with deeply held opinions (this is the essential role of the reporter: to go on an investigation and turn private discoveries into a public education).  This contrasts sharply with the mind-eroding, toxic drivel that oozes from the panels of Fox News and CNN, with the reports of Chuck Todd (NBC) or Wolf Blitzer.  They can only be relied upon to tell us what political operatives want us to think.  This has its use, but there’s a lot more to politics.     

A more assertive and open journalism, one that has more in common with a professor and her students than a reporter and her ill-formed conception of objectivity, could also be expressed in the official presidential debates. 

In the season’s penultimate episode of HBO’s Newsroom, this exact scenario was imagined.  (If you haven’t watched any Newsroom, its just like Game of Thrones minus the swords, the plot, the dragons, and none of the characters have functional genitalia.)

The lead, Jeff Daniels (Fly Away Home), tells some Republican operatives what we’ve all been thinking.  With too much structure, too little time, and too much power given to the candidates, the debates are more like talking-point GIFs, repeated over and over regardless of the question being asked.  Why not have a moderator who is more like a professor or a judge, one who has dominance over the debate and is most concerned with illuminating the most useful or persuasive arguments rather than desperately trying to appear fair. This boss moderator would say things like: Mr. President, nobody who just listened to that believes what you just said, or, Governor, I have a team of fact checkers streaming on my computer and that is a lie, care to answer again?  Someone like Jon Stewart would be perfect for the job.  (Eventually, as a society, we’ll have to correct the fact that the official debates are run by a shell company which is run by the two parties.)      

For now, fact-checking and boldy calling people out should become the new normal.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,