‘The Media’ consumes one of its own creations
One of the ironies of the strange presidential election of 2016 is Donald Trump’s claim that the media are conspiring to defeat him. Trump is, after all, a creation of “the media” and probably would not have earned the Republican Party’s nomination without overwhelming media attention.
That term “the media” has become all-encompassing. Trump often singles out a specific media organization for criticism, especially after that organization produces a story or report he doesn’t like.
But of late, with poll numbers flagging, he has turned increasingly to a more general charge. “The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing completely false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect her [Hillary Clinton] president,” he tweeted on Saturday.
In today’s American society “the media” is much different than it was, say, during the presidential election of 1960, when John F. Kennedy defeated Richard M. Nixon. Coverage of that election was largely limited to major newspapers, mostly on the East Coast, and three television networks — NBC, CBS and ABC.
Newspapers and broadcast organizations out in the “hinterlands,” then as now, relied on The Associated Press and other news cooperatives for their coverage.
Historically, newspapers had evolved from the “viewpapers” of colonial times, or party organs, to news-dominated publications with, at best, a secondary opinion function. Most colonial papers had been founded to support one political party or oppose another; the printed attacks on Washington, Adams and Jefferson were surprisingly vitriolic considering their revered status in our history.
But by mid-century newspaper owners had discovered that news sells much better than opinion, that profits were more empowering than betting on politicians. Therefore, a separation of news and opinion developed, not only in the newspaper pages but also in newspaper staffs.
That separation is maintained today in most dailies. You won’t find reporters expressing their own opinions in news stories or writing opinion columns. Most newspapers have an Opinions or Editorial page, which includes a variety of opinion-based articles.
The metropolitan papers, those most likely to cover a presidential election, maintain a separate staff to write for and edit the opinions pages, and generally those journalists have little or no interaction with reporters and news editors. They don’t decide what’s going to be covered or by whom.
Certainly reporters and news editors have biases. Everyone does. But journalistic training and experience teach us to put those biases aside, to tell both sides of the story, regardless of what we believe.
Editors make subjective decisions every day — from what stories to pursue to where we use those stories (1A or 14B). But we recognize our newspaper’s credibility depends upon being fair, accurate and thorough.
Newspapers also have another important check on bias. The majority of publishers who have a political preference are conservative. Editor & Publisher magazine found that in eight of the 11 presidential elections between 1972 and 2012, a majority of newspaper endorsements went to the Republican candidate.
“The media” are much more than newspapers. Even those original three major networks blurred the difference between news and opinion.Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley all had substantial news experience, but in anchoring national broadcasts they were considered “commentators,” free to mix their opinions with the news they presented. News magazines adopted a similar model, rather than sticking with a distinct separation.
Television is really a much different medium anyway because most networks depend heavily upon entertainment to pay their bills and generate profits. Their news departments can be a financial drag. Indeed, Trump became a national celebrity by hosting a popular TV program.
Today we also have several 24-7 news networks, Web-based organizations devoted to politics and public affairs and the so-called “social media” — email, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Most offer no pretense of objectivity or separation of news from opinion. It’s so difficult even to distinguish between truth and fiction that a Web site like Snopes.com has become a valuable resource.
We also have pseudo news programs such “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” “Full Frontal,” “The O’Reilly Factor” and “Hannity,” featuring entertainers rather than journalists but who provide a limited view of politics.
With such a proliferation of media, too many of us choose to follow those that tend to validate our own opinions, rather than those that present both sides. If you’re Republican, you watch Fox News; if you’re Democrat, you watch CNN or MSNBC. Much of the media resembles those old “viewpapers” in terms of mission.
Trump confounded almost everyone by dispatching a host of other Republican contenders, playing the same bullying, blustery, arrogant businessman we saw in “The Apprentice.” He won because he wasn’t a “politician,” one of the best ways to win political office these days.
Then serious news organizations, call them collectively the news media if you will, starting covering him more thoroughly. They had already done that for Clinton, in part because of her husband’s misdeeds and today’s political strategy of personal destruction. The real Donald Trump showed up, defined in part by his entertainment media adventures, or at least he has been unable to convince us otherwise.
News organizations, especially newspapers, are much better in reflecting reality than in manufacturing or advocating. By telling both sides, one almost always looks better than the other. That happens in almost every election, and the loser invariably blames the coverage because the alternative is to blame himself.
Roy Ockert is a former editor of The Jonesboro Sun. He may be reached by e-mail at royo@suddenlink.net.