Just the Facts, Maam
October 10, 2009 2:51 AM Subscribe
[JournalismFilter]: On the surface, televised news in the USA has evolved to a point where the average person is subjected to an endless point-counterpoint debate neglecting the timeless "just the facts" ageless news reporter oath. Is there scientific proof this has occurred and is there really a MSM? Bonus is finding websites that really do just report the facts surrounding news stories.
As a voracious consumer of American news reporting across all outlets, it seems to me major networks and cable news networks are engaged in "yellow journalism".
What is the reason for this and where can one find factual news that allows me to make an informed decision without hyperbole, sensationalism and spin?
I look around the cable news networks these days and during key programming hours exists only an avalanche of paid presenters doing their best to invoke controversy rather than analysis.
As a voracious consumer of American news reporting across all outlets, it seems to me major networks and cable news networks are engaged in "yellow journalism".
What is the reason for this and where can one find factual news that allows me to make an informed decision without hyperbole, sensationalism and spin?
I look around the cable news networks these days and during key programming hours exists only an avalanche of paid presenters doing their best to invoke controversy rather than analysis.
Where did you get the idea that news reporters take an "oath" to report "just the facts". This has been the subject of debate ever since the 1960s, but I know of no oath.
posted by megatherium at 4:45 AM on October 10, 2009
posted by megatherium at 4:45 AM on October 10, 2009
I think the reason for this is 24-hour news programming. To me, there's been a dramatic increase in the commentator-to-news ratio with the advent of that model. It's hard to give new news every minute of the day, so they filled in the empty hours with "helping" us interpret the news via opinion pieces. With that increased ratio as the new norm, opinion pieces then became increasingly loud and sensational as they compete for viewers (and the resultant advertising dollars), and so became entertainment of sorts. I have no cite for this other than my memories, but when looking for a study you might try searching for a comparison of news from then (say, pre-early-1980s) and now. As an example, look at this clip. It's Walter Cronkite providing news about the Three Mile Island incident. Notice how packed it is with information, and how little is given to commentators. Imagine all the news commentators (on all sides) frothing if that had happened today. That was 1979; to my memory, that's the way news was before the CNN/Fox/etc. 24-hour news model. There just wasn't time to get into commenting when the stations had to deliver the world news in an hour.
posted by Houstonian at 4:51 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Houstonian at 4:51 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
The news broadcasts by the big three, NBC, CBS, and ABC, generally rely on straight forward reporting of the news (except for politics - generally). The most newsy news are the evening half-hour broadcasts, as the morning news are more generic. You can watch the above (evening newscasts) online, and generally even extended versions.
Otherwise, you're stuck checking out the websites or publications of major newspapers and accept some of slight bias inherent to each source (like WSJ vs. NY Times).
posted by Atreides at 5:03 AM on October 10, 2009
Otherwise, you're stuck checking out the websites or publications of major newspapers and accept some of slight bias inherent to each source (like WSJ vs. NY Times).
posted by Atreides at 5:03 AM on October 10, 2009
This article from the Pew Trust gives an overview of a study that might be of interest. One bullet point notes:
posted by Houstonian at 5:06 AM on October 10, 2009
"Cable news is measurably thinner in its reporting than broadcast news. Cable stories rely on fewer and less transparent sources, contain more journalistic opinion and reflect fewer viewpoints."The final paragraph says:
"'The news is moving from being an organized, prepared lecture to a free-flowing conversation, with all the advantages and disadvantages that implies,' said Mr. Rosenstiel. 'The process is more open, but, paradoxically, it is also more prone to manipulation by those who want to shape public opinion. The cases of the government hiring commentators and creating faux web sites are part of this phenomenon.'"The link in that overview redirects to the most-recent study, so it should point to the 2005 one, which is here. They've done yearly studies from 2004 to present.
posted by Houstonian at 5:06 AM on October 10, 2009
CBS was still in black and white in 1979??
What I've noticed is that ACTUAL NEWS COVERAGE is just fine, despite the protests of the commentators. On the 24 hour news channels, those fact-packed reports get sliced and diced into a bunch of chunks and repeated, but its there. And I think the network news is just as good, if not better. The problem is that you have to actually watch it, which increasingly few people do.
The problem is the commentators- their trade is not news. And with the confusion they have wraught, confusing (some of) the public into believing that news/facts are malleable.
posted by gjc at 5:08 AM on October 10, 2009
What I've noticed is that ACTUAL NEWS COVERAGE is just fine, despite the protests of the commentators. On the 24 hour news channels, those fact-packed reports get sliced and diced into a bunch of chunks and repeated, but its there. And I think the network news is just as good, if not better. The problem is that you have to actually watch it, which increasingly few people do.
The problem is the commentators- their trade is not news. And with the confusion they have wraught, confusing (some of) the public into believing that news/facts are malleable.
posted by gjc at 5:08 AM on October 10, 2009
Best answer: the timeless "just the facts" ageless news reporter oath
News reporters don't take any oaths, alas, but many do their best to abide by the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. Reporters and editors are, for instance, called upon to "support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."
In my years studying and practicing journalism, the idea of reporting "just the facts" was one I never encountered. Reporting the truth, and from every angle, was the goal. I knew I had written a good article when I got calls from sources on both sides, accusing me of being biased.
Alas, I've worked in newspapers, magazines and radio, but never for broadcast news. Speaking of which ...
... this isn't at all scientific, but it does show that the debate over what is and isn't acceptable in broadcast journalism goes back quite a ways: Broadcast News from 1987 depicts a fairly realistic bit of newsroom drama revolving around how stories should be reported and presented.
posted by brina at 5:44 AM on October 10, 2009
News reporters don't take any oaths, alas, but many do their best to abide by the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. Reporters and editors are, for instance, called upon to "support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."
In my years studying and practicing journalism, the idea of reporting "just the facts" was one I never encountered. Reporting the truth, and from every angle, was the goal. I knew I had written a good article when I got calls from sources on both sides, accusing me of being biased.
Alas, I've worked in newspapers, magazines and radio, but never for broadcast news. Speaking of which ...
... this isn't at all scientific, but it does show that the debate over what is and isn't acceptable in broadcast journalism goes back quite a ways: Broadcast News from 1987 depicts a fairly realistic bit of newsroom drama revolving around how stories should be reported and presented.
posted by brina at 5:44 AM on October 10, 2009
Best answer: You may find the book No Time to Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle interesting.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:12 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by girlmightlive at 6:12 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
I need to add WNYC's On The Media. This show is consistently excellent.
posted by loosemouth at 6:14 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by loosemouth at 6:14 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I recall the words of the cyberpunk comic book journalist Spider Jerusalem "if you just want the facts, try a security camera." You're right about cable news being overrun by circus peformers.
But there is a school of thought that says 100% objectivity is never possible in news. People sometimes assume there was a lost era of super-neutral journalism. But there will always be built-in bias, based on what you decide to cover, which sides to treat legitimately, and what other assumptions are built-in. Keep in mind that newspapers evolved from 19th century Fox News-style political rant sheets.
On The Media is good. Last time I was on, I wanted to look at a subject from a new angle that host Bob Garfield wasn't so interested in. Their line of questioning showed they had already decided on their angle. Not that it was a bad angle, but they were stern in preventing me from going off the path. It was a good example of how producers' choices shape which "facts" we're supposed to find important.
posted by Kirklander at 7:33 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
But there is a school of thought that says 100% objectivity is never possible in news. People sometimes assume there was a lost era of super-neutral journalism. But there will always be built-in bias, based on what you decide to cover, which sides to treat legitimately, and what other assumptions are built-in. Keep in mind that newspapers evolved from 19th century Fox News-style political rant sheets.
On The Media is good. Last time I was on, I wanted to look at a subject from a new angle that host Bob Garfield wasn't so interested in. Their line of questioning showed they had already decided on their angle. Not that it was a bad angle, but they were stern in preventing me from going off the path. It was a good example of how producers' choices shape which "facts" we're supposed to find important.
posted by Kirklander at 7:33 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
But there is a school of thought that says 100% objectivity is never possible in news.I think it's more accurate to say that there is a school of thought that says that since 100% objectivity is not possible, there's no point in trying to be as objective as possible.
posted by hattifattener at 11:14 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
CBS was still in black and white in 1979??
It's possible this segment was recorded on an old reel-to-reel VTR, like the ones we had back in college right around this time. They only recorded in B&W.
posted by jrchaplin at 1:47 PM on October 10, 2009
It's possible this segment was recorded on an old reel-to-reel VTR, like the ones we had back in college right around this time. They only recorded in B&W.
posted by jrchaplin at 1:47 PM on October 10, 2009
The trouble with American MSM, especially newspapers, is they stopped putting the Who, What, Where and Why into the first paragraph. Instead, every news story must begin with some "human interest" -- a participant in the story is introduced, and the story told from their perspective. Why? And when did this practice predominate? Is it meant to be Subjective in order to avoid this quixotic quest for unatainable Objectivity?
The other serious contagion with newspaper news is American journalist's (or their editor's) irresistable urge to make the headlines into puns -- so incredibly tiresome.
posted by Rash at 2:49 PM on October 10, 2009
The other serious contagion with newspaper news is American journalist's (or their editor's) irresistable urge to make the headlines into puns -- so incredibly tiresome.
posted by Rash at 2:49 PM on October 10, 2009
No one has mentioned Al Jazeera English, which is quite a good news outlet -- as far as I can tell, they've been pretty straightforward in their reporting.
posted by spiderskull at 4:15 PM on October 10, 2009
posted by spiderskull at 4:15 PM on October 10, 2009
Oh, they have a YouTube channel, since, appallingly, their regular player uses Real Player.
posted by spiderskull at 4:18 PM on October 10, 2009
posted by spiderskull at 4:18 PM on October 10, 2009
Seconding Al Jazeera English. It reminds of what CNN used to be.
posted by i_love_squirrels at 3:45 AM on October 11, 2009
posted by i_love_squirrels at 3:45 AM on October 11, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
Journalism.org,
Columbia Journalis Review
Knight Science Journalism Review
Politifact
posted by loosemouth at 3:52 AM on October 10, 2009 [3 favorites]