Who defines what is real?
A large part of what many journalists have referred to as the "cultural divide" has been mythologized by these writers themselves. The simple act of writing (I don't necessarily mean blogging, as very few people actually read most of these enough for them to have any kind of significant impact) creates the reality itself. If a Journalist, such as David Brooks in the New York Times, or one of the many talking heads on the Fox News Network states that this country is widely divided, then to a certain extent it becomes true.
The media creates a context from which a large number of people define what occurs in the world... the media is the culture, at least in the sense that it exists as a summation of our cultural mores, desires, and fears. It also serves as a driving force.
If you doubt me on this, pay attention to the lack of actual content in most news articles; there is far more discussion about the trappings of the news than actual details about what is happening or what it means. This is most evident during political campaigns, wherein you may find it very difficult in most news broadcasts (including the Times and NPR) to find out what a candidates actual opinions are. You are more likely to hear discussions of "electability" than about whether the candidate actually has some suggested solutions to the problems of the day. Oh, you will hear about them, but they will often be referred to as "the issues" or "policy-papers" without going into any depth about what they actually mean. Most of the time you will see pictures of a candidate throwing a football, standing in front of various organizations, or with a gun or baby in their hands.
The press' assumption that the public is not interested in these details is outright insulting; the assumption that what people want is the People Magazine-ization of the news is self-fulfilling. It's not "give the people what they want," but instead, "give the people what we believe the people want so that our corporate sponsors can sell more products."
When it comes to determining what to write, journalists necessarily write revealing a specific worldview. Even the attempt at "non-biased" or "balanced" reporting reveals a bias in itself: the belief that reporting should be done without bias. For years we have been hearing from the conservative side of the political spectrum about the evils of the "liberal media." There does seem to be somewhat of a bias here, but the nature of it is not made particularly clear. (Note: I tend to think that labels such as "conservative" or "liberal are misleading, and only valid within a specific cultural context, but that is another discussion, so I will use them here as a shortcut to prevent this discussion from becoming overly arcane and obtuse).
The very concept of "balanced reporting" is in itself a liberal concept. It includes the idea that we do not know things for certain, so we should show multiple angles so that people can make up their minds on their own. On the conservative side, there is no such belief in "balance" even though the term is used quite cynically by conservative organizations such as Fox News (yes they are definitely a Right-wing biased organization... they have stated goals within the organization to present the news from a conservative slant). They call themselves "fair and balanced" while not even really attempting to do this in a serious way. This is almost a direct laugh at the rest of the (supposedly liberal) media establishment. The belief on the neo-conservative side is not actually that their views should be seen as balanced against liberal views, it is that they are right, that they really know the "truth" and anything stated (even if it is broadly misleading or even an outright lie) is okay as long as the ultimate outcome serves to advance the current agenda.
On the other side, the supposedly "liberal" press bends over backwards to show that they actually are balanced, principally because this is a value that a liberal society holds dear. For an example of this, witness the way that the press has reported the "debate" between "evolution" and the "Intelligent Design Theory." Anyone with a smidgen of a scientific background will acknowledge that this completely inane idea when considered within a scientific framework, simply because it is not testable or falsifiable. It is a belief system, which if left at that level could be acceptable, but if treated as a scientific theory, it is comparable to those who believe that the earth is flat. Yet the media has allowed this idea to enter the mainstream, including the supposedly responsible (and to conservatives, "liberal") New York Times, simply by stating that there is a debate at all; this debate does not exist at all within the scientific community. Because of the culture-dictating power of the media, giving both sides equal voice on a public stage has the effect of legitimizing this ordinarily laughable view, and down the rabbit-hole we go.
So how do we sort all of this out?
My personal biases (which I am willing to acknowledge may be socially constructed; I was raised and educated to think this way) lead me to mistrust anyone who claims to know the truth. I would rather at least see an attempt to show both sides of an issue so that I can sort these ideas out myself, but of course, I am realizing that I am still having trouble trusting what I read. Am I more likely to believe something that fits in with my already established worldview? I catch myself doing this all the time... if an article states something that I don't like, I start looking for holes; if someone states something with which I feel I already agree, I'm less likely to do so. A clear framework helps, so the balanced, scientific approach appeals to me. However, I can at least be convinced if enough evidence is presented to me to that my presuppositions might be wrong.
On the other side, those with a more "conservative" worldview may not trust someone who appears to equivocate. They already believe they know the answers, and they also may already acknowledge that people are inherently biased. In this sense, they mistrust what is perceived as the liberal media with its attempts to appear unbiased. They may trust sources such as Fox News, not only because the reporting clearly resonates with personal worldviews, but also because it is unyielding.
I suppose I must rely on my mistrust in the fallibility of humans. If we trust too much in one position, we may be blinded by our biases, and leave us open to the danger of false prophecy. If we endeavor to leave our minds open, we might actually learn something.
The questions remain: "What? And from whom?"
The media creates a context from which a large number of people define what occurs in the world... the media is the culture, at least in the sense that it exists as a summation of our cultural mores, desires, and fears. It also serves as a driving force.
If you doubt me on this, pay attention to the lack of actual content in most news articles; there is far more discussion about the trappings of the news than actual details about what is happening or what it means. This is most evident during political campaigns, wherein you may find it very difficult in most news broadcasts (including the Times and NPR) to find out what a candidates actual opinions are. You are more likely to hear discussions of "electability" than about whether the candidate actually has some suggested solutions to the problems of the day. Oh, you will hear about them, but they will often be referred to as "the issues" or "policy-papers" without going into any depth about what they actually mean. Most of the time you will see pictures of a candidate throwing a football, standing in front of various organizations, or with a gun or baby in their hands.
The press' assumption that the public is not interested in these details is outright insulting; the assumption that what people want is the People Magazine-ization of the news is self-fulfilling. It's not "give the people what they want," but instead, "give the people what we believe the people want so that our corporate sponsors can sell more products."
When it comes to determining what to write, journalists necessarily write revealing a specific worldview. Even the attempt at "non-biased" or "balanced" reporting reveals a bias in itself: the belief that reporting should be done without bias. For years we have been hearing from the conservative side of the political spectrum about the evils of the "liberal media." There does seem to be somewhat of a bias here, but the nature of it is not made particularly clear. (Note: I tend to think that labels such as "conservative" or "liberal are misleading, and only valid within a specific cultural context, but that is another discussion, so I will use them here as a shortcut to prevent this discussion from becoming overly arcane and obtuse).
The very concept of "balanced reporting" is in itself a liberal concept. It includes the idea that we do not know things for certain, so we should show multiple angles so that people can make up their minds on their own. On the conservative side, there is no such belief in "balance" even though the term is used quite cynically by conservative organizations such as Fox News (yes they are definitely a Right-wing biased organization... they have stated goals within the organization to present the news from a conservative slant). They call themselves "fair and balanced" while not even really attempting to do this in a serious way. This is almost a direct laugh at the rest of the (supposedly liberal) media establishment. The belief on the neo-conservative side is not actually that their views should be seen as balanced against liberal views, it is that they are right, that they really know the "truth" and anything stated (even if it is broadly misleading or even an outright lie) is okay as long as the ultimate outcome serves to advance the current agenda.
On the other side, the supposedly "liberal" press bends over backwards to show that they actually are balanced, principally because this is a value that a liberal society holds dear. For an example of this, witness the way that the press has reported the "debate" between "evolution" and the "Intelligent Design Theory." Anyone with a smidgen of a scientific background will acknowledge that this completely inane idea when considered within a scientific framework, simply because it is not testable or falsifiable. It is a belief system, which if left at that level could be acceptable, but if treated as a scientific theory, it is comparable to those who believe that the earth is flat. Yet the media has allowed this idea to enter the mainstream, including the supposedly responsible (and to conservatives, "liberal") New York Times, simply by stating that there is a debate at all; this debate does not exist at all within the scientific community. Because of the culture-dictating power of the media, giving both sides equal voice on a public stage has the effect of legitimizing this ordinarily laughable view, and down the rabbit-hole we go.
So how do we sort all of this out?
My personal biases (which I am willing to acknowledge may be socially constructed; I was raised and educated to think this way) lead me to mistrust anyone who claims to know the truth. I would rather at least see an attempt to show both sides of an issue so that I can sort these ideas out myself, but of course, I am realizing that I am still having trouble trusting what I read. Am I more likely to believe something that fits in with my already established worldview? I catch myself doing this all the time... if an article states something that I don't like, I start looking for holes; if someone states something with which I feel I already agree, I'm less likely to do so. A clear framework helps, so the balanced, scientific approach appeals to me. However, I can at least be convinced if enough evidence is presented to me to that my presuppositions might be wrong.
On the other side, those with a more "conservative" worldview may not trust someone who appears to equivocate. They already believe they know the answers, and they also may already acknowledge that people are inherently biased. In this sense, they mistrust what is perceived as the liberal media with its attempts to appear unbiased. They may trust sources such as Fox News, not only because the reporting clearly resonates with personal worldviews, but also because it is unyielding.
I suppose I must rely on my mistrust in the fallibility of humans. If we trust too much in one position, we may be blinded by our biases, and leave us open to the danger of false prophecy. If we endeavor to leave our minds open, we might actually learn something.
The questions remain: "What? And from whom?"
posted by nomis at 8/22/2005
0 comments
