The Why - Because "media lies"
This blog is primarily a brainstorming/discussion place for (and
hopefully the precursor to) a much bigger media project. The idea for
"the project" came from a discussion I had with my girlfriend about an
experience she had at a concert. She blogged the experience, and I'll
offer excerpts of it here:
Something has beenI've felt the same way on many occasions. It burns me to hear the ubercynical rants people unleash on that umbrella-concept, all-knowing, ever-slanted entity known as The Media.
bothering me about the EmilyHaines concert the other night. About midway though the show, Haines was introducing the song "The Maid Needs a Maid" and she said (to paraphrase):
"You don't believe the media reports that say that this is a feminist retelling of 'The Man Needs a Maid,' do you?"
To which one enlightened soul in the audience yelled:
"The media lies."
...
But
I am also tired of hearing that bland, ill-informed, sweeping
misstatement "the media lies." I'm both a member of the "media" (in as
much as there is membership) and the holder of very progressive
political values, and I make apology for neither. And there is nothing
I hate more than hearing progressives make arguments that lack nuance
and intelligence. There are fundamental, systemic imbalances in media
coverage, but surely there is a more refined position on media literacy
than "the media lies."
Part of the issue, I think, is that many
of the people who've cornered me at parties and demanded that media
bias is a solid fact, do not seem to understand the difference between
opinion (columnists and editorials) and news writing.
Also, one
thing I don't quite get about this argument is who exactly is doing the
lying. I've worked for a bunch of different magazines and have friends
throughout the media, and let me break the stunning news here: they're
not that organized. There really is no secret meeting place where
freelance writers or high-ranking editors drink scotch and muse over
the policies they will set for administrations, instead, they usually
work in sweatpants and fret over theminutiae of industry gossip.
But
when I stop to think about it, I'm not surprised such rants exist. News
media, being a product of human beings, is flawed -- sometimesinadvertently
, and sometimes not. Stories are sometimes shortened, cut or buried
when they conflict with media owners' politics. Sometimes deadlines
take precedence over research, and shoddy information gets reported as
truth.
Plus, many of the formats we use to make news palatable
are limiting. Broadcast news is limited by time (half-hour or one-hour
slots minus commercial ads). Print formats need to be readable,
somewhat visual, and accessible to be of any value. Online news sources
are still stigmatized (perhaps accurately) with unreliability and
insecurity.
Being a young journalist, I want to believe that my
field has integrity. I don't want what I report to be dismissed because
my job title sits lower than that of lawyers on the Unspoken List of
Disreputable Professions.
But also, being a young journalist,
I have to know the truth about what I'm doing. Is this attitude based
in fact or slander? Where does The Media fall short in its perceived
goals? Does it lie? Ever?
I've thought about this a lot since
that initial conversation with my girlfriend, and it's culminated here
on this blog. This entry is a but a glance at some of my reasons for
stating The Project, and I hope to record more of them as I go. But for
now, I'll start outlining my plans and methodology. That may illuminate
the matter further.
5 comments:
This project needs to happen.
I can't really comment on anything but "the media's" coverage of crime. In that vein, I've let loose a few of my own cynical rants and you've heard most of them.
From my perspective, it's not that there's this media conspiracy to lie about crime. It's partly that crime reporters are constrained by things like news cycles and the definition of news itself (part of which says that rarities are more newsworthy). The cycle and the definition create this tendency to report individual instances of (rare) violent crime.
This tendency, repeated over and over, creates this distorted picture of crime. It's not that any individual story is necessarily inaccurate, but that the overall picture that comes out of the totality of coverage is inaccurate. People can't make informed decisions.
I guess my biggest frustration is that so many members of "the media" don't seem to recognize that we (I claim membership in the club too, though as a decidedly junior member) are big-time players in society. The simple act of observing has an effect on what is observed. We understand this on one level, otherwise we wouldn't get involved. But we don't seem to understand it on a level that allows for the concept that the effect we have is not always positive.
I will never forget one of our j-school instructors hearing of an academic's criticism of "the media's" contribution to some social problem (I don't remember which one specifically, though I do remember it was well documented and established).
The instructor rolled her eyes, snorted and said she wished people would stop "blaming us" for society's problems.
It's not about blame. It's about recognizing the effects of what we do.
Rant over.
Like I said at the top, this project needs to happen. An interesting element might be to also look at the unintended negative effects of some kinds of coverage (talking to people inside and outside the news media).
This is a great idea, and I like both of your takes a lot... but why is the formatting on this particular post so fucked up?
Not sure. I suspect it's the cut-and-past job from Meg's blog. This template is getting trashed very soon though. It's too narrow.
Fair enough. Both of you should read this:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1984748,00.html
That's a dead link sir.
Post a Comment