Question Everything, Especially Authority

Posted on March 26th, 2009

There has been a tremendous amount of self reflection and pontificating in the newspaper industry lately about why there is decline in readership. There has also been politically motivated opinions expressing that this paper or that paper is too conservative or too liberal. Others have suggested that “creative-destructive technology” (i.e. radio, then television, now the internet) is to blame.

Societies or companies that expect a glorious past to shield them from the forces of change driven by advancing technology will fail and fall. – Rupert Murdoch

It is true that society has become more and more polarized, therefore an editorial staff risks alienating fifty percent of the population depending upon whatever editorial bias they have. You might think that “objectivity” is the answer, but that is far too simplistic. While an honorable reporter may strive for objectivity, it may well be nearly impossible to achieve in modern society. Our entire way of thinking is shaped by the society and influences within which we mature. Because the society in which our worldviews are shaped is more polarized than in the past, so then is the difficulty in being objective. Consider the following quote:

So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here—not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms. – Hunter S. Thompson

However, while “bias” might divide readerships, it does not explain why newspapers are in decline on both ends of the political spectrum. The polarization of society and bias of editorial boards should instead cause there to be at least two competing papers in a given market each serving their particular demographic with no gross decline in readership. Furthermore, as a reader of newspapers and the internet, listener to news radio, and watcher of news television – both left and right in fairly equal proportions – my ultimate consumption of these products is probably increased by the existence of competing worldviews. For me at least, bias is not the cause in my shift to the internet away from newspapers, radio, and television, I doubt it is for others either.

Perhaps it is because I am a member of the generation that bridges the computer revolution that causes me to both love the internet while at the same time think that there is nothing better than sitting down with that good old printed page to read well written and informative articles. In fact, my preference for an actual printed paper is so strong that I wondered why I always ultimately chose to get my news from the internet instead. It certainly isn’t a desire to use technology for technologies sake.

Here is my theory.

In the 40s and 50s, Rudolph Flesch and Robert Gunning worked with newspapers and wire services to improve readability. Flesch worked with the Associated Press and Gunning with United Press. Their objective was to increase market share by making newspapers more “accessible” to a wider audience. They did this by dumbing down the reading level, a process that has progressively been taken to the extreme.

Conversely, today reporters and newswriters in particular should seek to raise their readers up, becoming teachers in some ways. As a typical engineer, I am particularly weak in spelling and grammer. One of the ways that I think I have improved in those areas is by reading challenging texts. I love it when I have to drag out the dictionary or encyclopedia to understand a news article. It means that the writer forced me to learn. It means the writer had an expectation that even if I was ignorant on a particular item, I would not be too lazy to find out what I needed to know to understand. I rarely have to look anything up that I have read in the newspaper, but often have to “go researching” to sufficiently understand some of my favorite bloggers. This process is much easier on the internet where google, online encyclopedias, and online dictionaries abound. Additionally, a reporter who uses an uncommon word in an article on the internet can simply “link” the word to an online dictionary.

Furthermore, exactly because of the polarization and bias in society, I don’t want “gatekeepers” for objective and verifiable information. I can do that myself, thank you very much. Aside from arrogance, what makes a reporter believe that he can discern the truth better than me or anyone else? With the internet, it is easy to find the various viewpoints and the nuances in between. The diligent and honest online reporter may even decide to provide a link to the “verifiable information” and allow me to see the unfiltered source. Also, many online news stories provide immediate and unfiltered comments that permit the writer’s credibility to be challenged.
Why is the internet winning?

• It is because readers want the writer to assume they are smart enough to understand or can find out the meaning of complex words that communicate the nuances of a topic far better than an elementary vocabulary permit.
• It is because readers can pull up several articles covering the same subject from authors with varying worldviews, then discern the truth; which is probably somewhere between the spectrum presented.
• It is because readers want to be able to “fact check” the source documentation for themselves. They have discovered that reporters too often clip and edit the source in a manner that either fails to portray the nuance of the source or alters the meaning entirely.

Those same journalists who taught my generation to “question everything” and “question authority” are now uncomfortable with the fact that they are themselves being questioned and their authority is being challenged. We do question everything, including journalists, and that is a good thing.

Tags: the press
Filed under Uncategorized |

4 Responses to “Question Everything, Especially Authority”

1. eLwood Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

   Rep Martin wrote:“I don’t want “gatekeepers” for objective and verifiable information. I can do that myself, thank you very much. Aside from arrogance, what makes a reporter believe that he can discern the truth better than me or anyone else?”

   By your own admission you have no training in journalism which is considered a profession. If you had the integrity to investigate journalistic standards you may be of a different mind but I’m not in the least hopeful.

   Just because I can compute numbers, draw isometric shapes from a group of numbers, and read a steam valve doesn’t make me qualified to be an engineer.

   It’s time you take your head out of the hole FOX News has helped you put it in.

   One of journalism’s most currently abused standards is the obligation to report BOTH or ALL sides of a public issue.

   On Bush’s PBS I watched a program by Wall Street Journal Editorial Board a few years ago. It was discussion of how to help reduce health care costs. There was NO one from the health industry on their in-house panel. Their major conclusion was to increase the patient load of nurses to ten patients. This would reduce the cost of nursing services and hence save lots of money.

   Fact is nursing is understaffed now. Hospitals are stretched to provide adequate nursing services in the current ratio of 5 patents to each nurse and nurses are very stressed. Too many are leaving the profession due to stressful loads. Had the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board had the integrity of broadcasting and editorializing which professional journalism calls for any hospital administrator or director of nursing could have easily pointed out their major error which they attempted to push as recommended policy.
   .

2. T.M. Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

   Martin I didn’t think I would agree with you so often. So unconventional in your thinking it is neat to see something really different for once. I don’t want someone else deciding what is true for me either.

3. Chatty Cathy Says:
   March 27th, 2009 at 6:49 am

   eLwood seems to be saying that journalists are “trained” to discern truth in the same way that engineers are “trained” to perform their tasks. This seems a ridiculous comparison to me. Perhaps he/she could elaborate.

4. eLwood Says:
   April 6th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

   There you go again Cathy. Editorializing what was written.

   Which part of “both sides” do you not understand?

   .