John Krehbiel
The phrase news organizations need to learn
by John Krehbiel on 4 July 2008
When somebody willfully distorts what was actually said or what was actually done, the press needs to learn to say “You’re a damned liar.”
Of course it goes both ways. When Al Haig said he was in charge at the White House after Saint Ronald was shot, he wasn’t talking about presidential succession, he was talking about chain of command within the White House. That scarf Rachael Ray was wearing…well, we’ve been over that.
What I really want to see is news organizations establishing their reputations on reliability, and openly calling out those who distort or mis-report the news. If one organization would call “BS” on another, there would be a lot less distortion, and we would be able to rely on the news to be somewhat more accurate. (I know, Greg, the real problem is that they are lazy, but they are allowed to be lazy.)
And it may not be entirely the fault of the press. Americans swiftly misquote almost anybody. It’s NOT “Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.” Mikey was NOT the kid who would eat anything. And for crying out loud, the friggin’ proof is NOT “in the pudding.”
2008-07-04 » John Krehbiel
4 July 2008 @ 10:31 am
What few people understand about the media is that they are not, as they wish us to believe, saintly, objective seekers of truth who want to educate the world and write the first draft of history.
Like everybody else, they’re selling something. And the way you sell something is to package it so that people will want to buy it.
The stuff the media packages for sale is stories about various goings on.
Reporting what somebody actually said is honest, but it doesn’t sell newspapers. Reporting something blatantly false sells newspapers (e.g., the worst of the tabloids), but ruins the paper’s reputation. Most news organizations seem to aim between those two.
Reporters are very arrogant people. They need other people to want to hear what they have to say. That’s doubly true of columnists.
So you have this mix of competing interests. They want to seem to be reliable and have people trust them, but at the same time they have to gin up scary stories to get people to be interested enough to buy the paper or turn on the show.
That’s why you don’t hear, “The air is cleaner than it’s been in decades. Details tonight at seven.” You hear, “An alarming new trend that might threaten your children. Tonight at seven.”
There are organizations that claim to keep tab on the accuracy of news reporting and call them to account, but they’re subject to the same biases. And when you read the “reality check” columns that come out during campaigns, the alleged “reality” is biased by the paper’s point of view.
For example, I read a “fact check” thing recently on McCain that said something like, “McCain says he’s for X, but he opposed three bills that would have done X.”
Okay, and what other pork or silliness was in those bills? I’m in favor of letting every law-abiding citizen carry a concealed firearm, but if that was tacked on to a bill saying that every gun had to have a trigger lock, I’d oppose it. Then the “fact checkers” would say “he says he supports right-to-carry laws, but he opposed HR2300,” or whatever.
Also, “the proof is in the pudding” seems like a reasonable short-hand to me, because people should understand that “in the pudding” implies eating it (not finding a written proof in the pudding).
The one that bugs me is the misuse of “the exception proves the rule.”
4 July 2008 @ 4:06 pm
The “exception proves the rule” bugs you? Hrm. Perhaps I’ve only seen it used wisely, so it seems reasonable to me. The stuff I can’t stand is “with all due respect” and “more and more,” because more and more authors show more and more their inability to more and more use the damn word “increasingly.”
4 July 2008 @ 4:43 pm
But how would it affect ratings if you heard “The story reported on that other news show is full of crap. Here’s the evidence. If you want it right, watch us.”
4 July 2008 @ 5:58 pm
jkrehbielp: You’ve got a point. I don’t know why that hasn’t happened already. I can’t imagine the media moguls *and all their minions* are simply geniuses who know that such a tactic would be a slipper slope to their demise. And it would be. I really would expect them to fall into that trap (to our benefit). But they don’t. Its really disappointing. The closest I’ve seen them come is slogans “fair and balanced” or “we report, you decide.” They are just slogans, but it is a minute step in this direction.
4 July 2008 @ 7:24 pm
John, you just want to eat your cake and have it, too.
4 July 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Actually, they might be able to get good ratings by doing that (exposing the lies on the other networks), but that would be inviting a war. The other networks would return the favor.
4 July 2008 @ 8:29 pm
The reason I don’t like “the exception proves the rule” is that the meaning of the word “prove” has changed. It originally included the idea of “testing,” so that the expression meant “the exception tests the rule,” which makes sense.
The idea that an exception “proves” a rule in the modern sense — i.e., showing that it’s right — is just nonsense.