Micah Tillman: Three Ways Selection Makes Mainstream News Not News

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Micah Tillman

A recent search of the headlines revealed that talk, not action, has become news to the mainstream media. "Former NJ Governor's Wife Recalls Ordeal." "In Book, Bush Peeks Ahead to His Legacy." "As 9/11 Draws Near, a Debate Rises: How Much Tribute Is Enough?" "In Georgia, Voices of Reassurance." "2nd Retired British General Slams US."

The only thing that separates this "news" from high school gossip is the fact that talk by nationally significant people might predict nationally significant action. But is news now about speculation, not fact? How can something that hasn't happened be news? It isn't even new yet.

When talk and speculation become a mainstay of what the mainstream calls news, one can't help but be sympathetic to both the right- and left-wing "New Media's" charge of bias. Mainstream reporting does seem to be slanted in favor of something, and it isn't the real news.

But a poor selection of topic is not the only reason the news is no longer news. There is the second issue of word selection. Entire cases are now tried in the headlines. Take one of my favorites: "Angry Borat victim sues." The headline writer had declared the person a victim even before the suit was decided.

Thirdly, the news fails to be news because of its selectiveness. Or, more precisely, it fails to be objective reporting because to report is to select a point (or points) of view. Once the reporter has made such a selection, she cannot eliminate herself from her report. It exists as the product of a personal decision.

Much has been said about whether journalists are mirrors, and whether as mirrors they (a) reflect events to those who were not there, or (b) reflect people to themselves. But even if a journalist were a mirror, what he chose to reflect would be his own decision. And his choices make his reflections ("reports") personal, selective, not objective.

The locus classicus of the mainstream journalist's confused claim to objectivity will surely become, if it hasn't already, the statements by Martha Raddatz on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," May 11, 2007.

Raddatz, Chief White House Correspondent for ABC News, responded to a caller (minute 30:35 of the clip) who wanted to know her party affiliation. Raddatz responded:

Raddatz: We don't talk about those things. . . . I'm an objective reporter. . . . I wouldn't talk about that. I, I'd like to, I'd like you to find a reporter that does.

The caller said that if he had to identify himself as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent (this is how C-SPAN call-ins work), it was only fair that she say who she voted for as well. Raddatz responded:

Raddatz: I'm not going to tell you anything about how I vote, when I vote, and who I've ever voted for. I am here as a journalist. I am not here as a political representative of either party. I am a journalist, and that is my job to try to maintain objectivity. . . . I'm not calling in on a call show to tell you . . . what party I belong to. I'm a journalist.

The caller asked what difference her party affiliation made, if she was truly objective. Raddatz replied:

Raddatz: There's an appearance of conflict of interest . . . . And if I came out here and said something like that, there would be people saying, "Ah hah! See, she's not objective, because she said this, that, and the other." . . .

But we can only properly appreciate Raddatz's statements in the context of what happened earlier in the show. Brian Lamb, "Washington Journal's" host and C-SPAN's founder, followed up on a caller's comment (time: 10:17):

Lamb: . . . [S]ince you've been in the business, the amount of money that people who are anchors and all [get] has skyrocketed. Does that change the view that the American people have of people in our business, that if somebody's making 15 million dollars a year, that that's hard for them to really care about, uh, the people they're reporting?

Raddatz's response is revealing:

Raddatz: . . . I think [ABC anchor] Charlie [Gibson] cares deeply about the news. I think our morning anchors care deeply about the news. . . . [I]t is a business we are in . . . but we try to separate ourselves from that and those things, from salaries.

Lamb asks whether reporters' money separates them from the people who are their subjects. Raddatz says "No" -- they separate themselves from their money. Reporters care about what they cover, and care "deeply." They are attached to their subject (the news) possibly their subjects (the people in the news), but definitely not their salaries.

But to be objective, I must stand back, ignore my feelings, deal with things as they are in themselves, not as they seem to me. If I were a reporter and could detach myself from my money, why be proud of not being detached from my subject? And why be proud of being attached to my subject if I am proud of being objective, that is, detached from my subject and my own subjective feelings?

The journalists' idea of objectivity is philosophically "modernist," and was exposed as absurd by Nietzsche, 13 decades ago ("On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life," §6). The claim to be "objective" about the news is a claim to be uninvolved with the very thing you are involved with by reporting it. To describe something "objectively," as if it had nothing to do with the thoughts and feelings it elicits, and the angles from which it appears, is a distortion.

The philosophers who came after Nietzsche's refutation of modernist objectivity, and who also reject "objectivity" as a meaningless word, are called -- creatively -- post-modernists. The focus in reporting, they say, should be on the variety of views and voices. Those journalists and scientists who still use the term "objectivity" don't realize it is outdated. "No one talks like that anymore."

By insisting that you reveal your ideological loyalties up front, the New Media has moved beyond the modernist philosophy of the mainstream media and towards post-modernism. But the mainstream tendency to report what people say rather than what they do may also be a tendency toward post-modernism. If it is, I find it surprising that anyone would adopt a focus on the variety of views and voices, while clinging to the incompatible, modernist idea of objectivity.

In the end, however, neither the modernists nor the post-modernists have it right. We should desire the comprehensive, clear, and all-sided understanding of the news. Modernist "objectivity" is good insofar as it encourages a focus on the news itself, rather than on those who talk about the news. But it is also a distorting fiction.

And the post-modernist focus on "views and voices" is good insofar as it shows us that observers cannot help but be involved with the events they observe. You cannot fully describe the news without saying how it affects its observers. But to simply report "views and voices" is to wimp out on the work of journalism: finding a comprehensive, clear, and all-sided understanding of the events that are the real news.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Micah Tillman is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America. Links to his articles, published by sites such as RelevantMagazine.com and FreeLiberal.com, and a list of upcoming titles can be found at micahtillman.blogspot.com.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati