|
Most public officials, in dealing with the press, just have to take it ... if they complain or argue back, they only make themselves the subject of more attacks or are portrayed as churlish or unresponsive to the public
Former British prime minister Tony Blair waited until the end of his tenure before telling what it was like to be a target. His "Feral Beast" speech on June 21, 2007, came when he was about to retire, and so was able to more honestly comment on relations with the news media. What he said was, the press almost made life in Britain ungovernable.
"The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked. The consequences of this are acute.
"First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.
"Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact.
"Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out.
"Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as (important as) if not more important than the news itself. So -- for example -- there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little or no relation to what was intended.
"In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is routine.
"The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life's usual gray is almost entirely absent. 'Some good, some bad ... some things going right, some going wrong' ... these are concepts alien to today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is 'a crisis.' A setback is a policy 'in tatters.' A criticism, 'a savage attack.' "
Blair concluded: "I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future."
And now ... here's a bit of a surprise ... you'll never guess who actually agrees with Blair, though perhaps unwittingly ... it's a very prominent figure in American journalism ... none other than New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
Delivering the keynote address on Oct. 22 at WebbyConnect, a conference exploring the future of the Internet, Sulzberger noted how "the immediacy of the images and the intensity of the 24-hour news cycle combine to produce constant hyperbole. Every weather disturbance is the Storm of the Century. Every bomb that explodes is breaking news. ... We have to become more practiced at not overreacting to the latest piece of news or information."
When he said "we," hopefully he meant to include his own newspaper.
Back to Blair ... his comments and concerns may apply even more to the USA, where the Sullivan and other Supreme Court decisions have reduced the media's liability for making false statements, if not almost eliminated it ... in other words, the media ... being basically libelproof ...have even more power over public officials here than in Britain.
Aren't most public officials, once elected or appointed, honest and well meaning ... at least decent and trying to do a good job? We think so. Yet, when the press disagrees with them, or they make the inevitable mistakes or misjudgments, these are often falsely painted as crooked or having evil intent. It has become a destructive relationship ... and there seems little doubt that most U.S. officials trying to serve the public, if asked for their honest thoughts about the press, would answer just as Mr. Blair did.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
