This week’s Keepin’ it 1600 podcast (Live
from Drew University) led me to an epiphany regarding media coverage, media
bias and Donald Trump. It connects with the Norm Orenstein interview that I
wrote about last week and the Jay Rosen piece
that Colin pointed out.
Donald Trump has trouble sticking to factual statements.
There have been a number
of
pieces
citing lies per minute statistics etc… Keepin’ it 1600 cites this
78% false figure. There’s also a handy dandy comparison chart to Hillary
Clinton, who has a better grip on reality.
Yet surveys show that voters view Trump as more honest and
trustworthy than Clinton. This recent poll,
taken after Comey’s letter to Congress, has Trump leading 46% - 38%. So,
there’s a disconnect here.
According to Pfeiffer/Favreau (I can’t tell their voices
apart), the purpose of journalists and the media is to inform people. But this
year media outlets are struggling with the notion of balance versus truth.
Pfeiffer/Favreau said, “when the pursuit of truth comes into conflict with the pursuit
of balance, the media has chosen balance every single time.” This has led to an
inaccurate comparison of Clinton vs. Trump; making Trump seem more upstanding
(aka honest and trustworthy) and Clinton seem more untruthful than in reality.
Again, the numbers bear out this assertion.
Norm Ornstein talks about this exact phenomenon and I wrote
about it here.
Favreau/Pfieffer note the media’s penchant to sensationalize
Comey’s letter to Congress, regardless of whether it was warranted. Outlets,
including the New York Times, featured headlines with terms like “reopening
investigation,” “bombshell”,
and “scandal”
when no one actually knew anything. (This Gizmodo
headline was a little more accurate.)
Thus the media is struggling to cover two asymmetric
candidates – in the words of Jay
Rosen.
Two weeks ago, a local Florida newspaper wrote a letter
to its readers, published as a column. The Daily Commercial apologized to its
readers for biased coverage against Donald Trump.
Jay Rosen refuted this in the Guardian,
“Unable to think it through clearly, the editors surrendered
their right to speak truth to power and sold out their colleagues in the
national press.” On his blog,
Rosen notes that the Daily Commercial’s editor responded to his criticism in an
email: “I can’t disagree.”
What?! The newspaper surrendered to
external pressure (noted here)
in order to keep readers happy? The paper placed greater value on reader’s
trust – and comfort – than placing Trump’s candidacy in historical perspective?
This is amazing to me, but the words
speak for themselves.
The strategy to accuse mainstream media
of bias, to the point where reader’s reactions cause papers to re-think the way
that they cast the news, is brilliant. It’s a strategy that has been
tremendously effective for Donald Trump, and the Republican Party more generally.
It’s also something that they will undoubtedly continue to use regardless of
the outcome of the election.
How free is this media?
No comments:
Post a Comment