Time Is Limited

When I was young I used to believe that the New York Times was biased against the Jews and against Israel. Lots of reasons were given for that, primarily involving the Jewishness of the publisher and the goal of Jews in America to stay hidden and not make waves. Otherwise, I saw the paper as reasonably objective. It was the American newspaper of record: the “Gray Lady,” the standard by which other papers were judged.

As time has passed I've become more and more convinced that I was wrong – not about my first supposition but about the second. In regard to the first, in 2001, Max Frankel, a former editor of the Times, wrote

AND then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II -- a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination.

The annihilation of six million Jews would not for many years become distinctively known as the Holocaust. But its essence became knowable fast enough, from ominous Nazi threats and undisputed eyewitness reports collected by American correspondents, agents and informants. Indeed, a large number of those reports appeared in The Times. But they were mostly buried inside its gray and stolid pages, never featured, analyzed or rendered truly comprehensible.

…........

At The Times, the reluctance to highlight the systematic slaughter of Jews was also undoubtedly influenced by the views of the publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. He believed strongly and publicly that Judaism was a religion, not a race or nationality -- that Jews should be separate only in the way they worshiped. He thought they needed no state or political and social institutions of their own. He went to great lengths to avoid having The Times branded a ''Jewish newspaper.'' He resented other publications for emphasizing the Jewishness of people in the news.

…........

It's easy to consider this approach a remnant of the past, one peculiarly linked to the time and the social attitudes, but it is now worse than ever. The Times devotes numerous articles – usually front page – column after column and article after article to making accusations against Israel while supporting the Palestinians – sometimes justifying terrorist acts – as often as possible.

As for the assumption that the Times was otherwise objective, I was too naïve. Over time, however, I've come to realize that the paper is agenda, not news, driven; that ideology is more important than fact; that readership numbers and ad revenues are among the internal criteria of success. Especially ideology. That's the key.

Advocacy journalism has replaced objective reporting, and vitriol is splashed generously on those with whom the paper differs. That was repeatedly demonstrated during the recent presidential campaign – and the fault-finding continues. With a vengeance. I may have personal reservations about President Trump, but he is my president and I'm prepared to reserve judgment and criticism until he takes office. The Times, which has lionized his predecessor and touted his party's candidate, continues its praise, while denigrating the election winner, whom it has already written off.

I've been reading a book recently, “Gray Lady Down,” by William McGowan, who has written for several publications including the Times magazine. The book documents many of the paper's failings in reporting – not simply errors of fact, which are frequent, but plagiarism and the insertion of opinion in what should be objective news. The “reporters” frame the news in the mold prescribed by the management, as they were chosen to do. And they omit or bury information that does not support the preformed opinions. (Interestingly, McGowan doesn't mention the Times failures regarding the Holocaust, Israel, and the Jews. Perhaps in relation to the “social attitudes” of current society – or his own views.)

But there are problems with style as well as substance. In an effort to increase readership, the paper has altered its style to meet perceived preferences (or at least the preferences of the publisher) and social fads and fashions are what generates the newspaper's form and content. The style of the paper is aimed at attracting “hip” (ie LGBT, “diverse,” multicultural, young) readership, to whom it will impart the ideology. (Of course that won't be difficult, since those who agree with its philosophy will choose the paper anyway.) It's a sad and scary, but entirely predictable, scenario.

Bottom line? What is the “takeaway” message? The “standard” of American journalism is no more reliable than any other organ. Less so, because people assume it can be trusted. And it can't. It's neither fair nor balanced. Other media organs may claim to be so, but at least people take their claims with a grain of salt. Somehow the Times has become sacrosanct. It shouldn't be.

Staying Alive

I've written about the press before. (While I'll refer to the “papers” and the “press,” that should be understood as shorthand for all of the media – including the internet.) One of my biggest gripes is that too many journalists view events through the lens of their own biases, or sometimes don't even bother with events to justify the statement of those biases. They are often termed “advocacy journalists,” and they turn objective news into the columns that someday they hope to have. It's oversimplification to suggest that all journalists put a spin on the news, but enough do to make the concept of informing the public through a “free press” a parody. It's becoming more and more difficult to trust the reports found in even the most earnest of publications – ones that we once viewed as the “standards” and the papers “of record.” “All the news that's fit to print,” “fair and balanced,” “objective,” and similar terms cannot be taken seriously. It's safer not to believe any news reports.

Modern technology has given us the ability to see events as reported in a wide variety of media from all over the world, and we wind up with countless different views of the same facts. Too many stories seem to be a replay of “Rashōmon.” It has become obvious that what we used to believe without question, what we thought represented an objective reporting of the facts, cannot be taken at face value.

There's no doubt in my mind that my previous characterizations are true but, like many of the stories submitted by these reporters, they lacked context and explanation. No blanket indictment of journalists is intended – most are hard working journeymen sincerely seeking to inform us of what they see, but there are those who place themselves above their profession, some who oversimplify their stories, and many who face difficult hurdles when it comes to telling us their stories.

Those are the issues that I'd like to consider, in an extended fashion, today. The discussion is certainly not complete, of course, but I hope it will add to our understanding of what's happening. And perhaps it will explain some of what contributes to the revisionism and misinformation which pervade our times. I'm especially interested in the first and last problems I raised – those placing themselves above their profession, and the question of “hurdles” – although to a degree they overlap. As for the second, oversimplification, which may result from, among other things, the journalist's failure to fully understand his subject or the selling short of his readers through his own inadequacy – it's hard to remedy poor training and poor habits, and reporters who fall into these traps just don't know enough to do any better.

The first group are primarily the advocacy journalists, those who are self-promoters, and the ones who are lazy. In order to convey their message they don't even have to be at the site of the news. They have the internet, and, in addition, they know, before they learn the facts, what they want to say – often emphasizing their own involvement in the story – or they can get enough to publish without actually going to the site of the action And it may be dangerous to go there anyway. They are journalists with no excuse for their unethical behavior. They have little regard for their readers.

More to be pitied are the ones who have constraints imposed upon them from outside. An illustration from “Honest Reporting” (October 13, 2015) is useful:

“Last November, the PLO warned [emphasis added] foreign reporters not to use the words 'Temple Mount' when referring to the Jerusalem esplanade that houses the Al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock.

“The site’s Hebrew name, Har HaBayit translates to Temple Mount. This is a name that Jews and Christians used to refer to the holy site before the emergence of Islam, and certainly before the Jordanian army captured the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1948.

“But the PLO argument is that the holy site is located in 'occupied territory,' and that any name other than Haram al-Sharif (literally, the Noble Sanctuary) impinges on Palestinian rights.”

An authority of some kind – often the ruling government of the country where the story originates – wants it told in a particular way. And reporters report it that way out of fear. Government control is common and not to be ignored when relating a story – inadvertently or intentionally. Several years ago I wrote to one of the foreign press groups complaining about the lack of reporting from certain countries, and the fact that those reports that did come out were usually governmental propaganda. The organization didn't seem very concerned about the problem, simply telling me that everyone knew the there was no free press in those countries, and there was no need to remind them. The press's own published ethical standards are of lesser concern, even if they prohibit the publication of propaganda and require that journalists specify the sources of their stories. The main concern of most of the news organizations – both the media and the unions to which the reporters belong – is the maintenance of sources and the safety of the reporters. (The latter function, of course, should not be minimized, as illustrated by the fate of Daniel Pearl OBM [of blessed memory] and too many others, but there should be great concern as well for the observance of journalistic ethics and truth.)

But the authority dictating the slant of the story may be the employer of the journalist – the publisher or the editorial staff. The media often have editorial positions and they “suggest” to their writers that stories should illustrate those positions rather than contradict them. But journalists, like the rest of us, are most comfortable around those who share their opinions, and many of them work for organs with the same biases. And they're eager to protect their own jobs and their sources of information. What follows are excerpts from William Shirer's “Berlin Diary” which was published in 1941.

“Berlin, November 28 [1934]

“Much talk here that Germany is secretly arming, though it is difficult to get definite dope, and if you did get it and sent it, you'd probably be expelled. … Went out to a cheap store in the Tauenzienstrasse today and bought a comical-looking ready-made suit of 'tails' for our foreign press ball at the Aldon Saturday night. A dinner jacket, I was told, was not enough.

“Berlin, December 2

“The ball all right. Tess had a new dress and looked fine. [Paul Joseph] Goebbels [Reich Minister of Propaganda], Sir Eric Phipps, François Poncet, [American Ambassador, Professor William E.] Dodd, and General [Walter] von Reichenau, the nearest thing to a Nazi general the Reichswehr has and on very good terms with most of the American correspondents, were among those present. ...”

Clearly it would have been bad for him and the organization he represented to be expelled (he was an American citizen and probably wouldn't have been shot, though there is a real possibility of that today in some of the countries in the Middle East and elsewhere). He and his colleagues were aware of many murders and other illegal acts, but not so indiscreet as to report on all of them while covering the countries in which they occurred. (After all, they were there to observe, but not to be affected by injustice.) And, while in Nazi Germany, it would have been impolitic to upset General von Reichenau who was “on very good terms with most of the American correspondents.” (Add to this the fact that, at least in these entries he seems to have been more concerned with the press ball and his and his wife's outfits than in the story he was there to cover.)

The least obvious problem, however, is the kind that that is dictated by the others. While I've called it “hurdles,” it refers to the actions taken that aid in the sale of the story and of the paper: actions that serve the needs of the publisher and the market. Reports are edited to a particular length as well as to a document that slants the facts to fit the publisher's or the editor's views. Another problem is that although the press has a fetish about confirmation or a story before printing it, the desire to publish quickly – to get a scoop – often takes precedence over accuracy.

Add to that the old saying, “If it bleeds, it leads.” And it sells papers. As do exciting headlines – whether or not they are true. (It's another method of tailoring the stories to fit the “take” of the management.) Too often they seem to be designed to be intended as a “take-away” message for those who only skim the headlines. They may not be borne out by the story itself, and they certainly lack any context or background information which would help an interested reader understand the truth. The same is true of photographs and their captions. Since only a small number of pictures can be used, the ones chosen give the reader a visual message of what he is to believe, and that message may be incorrect. Moreover, the caption may be misleading. It is also, sadly, the case that the pictures may have nothing to do with the story even though they are shown as such. In short, the papers don't waste time on context or anything that would take up too much space or detract from the message they want to convey. Don't give the reader the chance to think for himself. The public has figured it out though. The following citation from the Huffington Post (2012) illustrates this sad fact:

“A new Gallup poll on perceived honesty and ethical standards found that journalists possess a dismally low rating. When asked to rate a variety of professions on having "very high" to "very low" honesty and ethical standards, pollsters found that below 25 percent of Americans have positive feelings about the honesty of journalists.” [I realize that I am using the press to call itself into question, but I find the statistic quite believable.]

That means that 75 percent of Americans don't. What's even more frightening is that the phenomenon is not new. In a lecture a hundred years earlier [1912] at the Columbia School of Journalism, Ralph Pulitzer, the oldest son of Joseph Pulitzer, decried fake “news,” though he considered it atypical. Clearly, however, the problem of unreliability in journalism has a long history. And it demonstrates that journalists may use the press to distribute stories that have no basis in fact irrespective of the desire of the reader to believe whatever he sees.

We're presented with a difficult problem. With all of the sources slanting the available information to correspond to the message they're promoting, and with all those possibly conflicting messages on line and viewable by the reader, it has become increasingly difficult to know what is true. And many governments – like, for example, those in the Middle East – rely on that fact, and rely as well on the recognition that most of the media will repeat whatever they say without questioning it. They may disclaim responsibility for the information, or correct or retract it at a later date, but the very fact that it appeared in print is all that is needed by some readers, and the subsequent correction is too tedious to be read.

So the reader is left with a “truth” that is partial – in both senses of the word. But, of course, he has a choice: take it or leave it. It's all he's going to get. Will Rogers said it, but it's just as true now as it was in the days of vaudeville: "All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."

Actually it's not true. What you read in the papers will do you a disservice. You won't just be ignorant. Too often you'll be misinformed.

Next episode: “The Sixty-four Dollar Question” – A quiz for you.

All I Know

                                                                                                      

There were times when Will Rogers showed poor judgment. Like the time he said of Leon Trotsky:

I bet you if I had met him and had a chat with him, I would have found him a very interesting and human fellow, for I never yet met a man that I didn’t like. When you meet people, no matter what opinion you might have formed about them beforehand, why, after you meet them and see their angle and their personality, why, you can see a lot of good in all of them.

And, though said tongue-in-cheek, his view of the press also was ill-considered:

Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.

If you believe what you read there, you're likely to be misled. The media, and most notably the press, are only occasionally reliable – and you'll never be sure of when that occasion is. There are times, especially with a “hot” story, when publication is premature in order to guarantee a “scoop.” Speed may trump fact-checking and accuracy may be sacrificed in order to be first. It's one of those cases which displays the least of their sins – making a sloppy but honest mistake.ⁱ But more often the intent is to present a point of view. Sometimes it is that of the reporter, however often it is that of another party. Some examples are in order. And they include: the reporter who consciously mixes fact with his own opinion,ⁱⁱ who slants the content of his story to promote his own agenda, is practicing “advocacy journalism,” and no warning of the bias presented as truth may be offered by the organ in which the story is told, because the “spin” frequently corresponds to the opinion offered on the editorial page.ⁱⁱⁱ The story, therefore, demonstrates the “proof” and the justification for the paper's position, and bears witness as to why the readers should support this position.

In this instance the reporter is presenting his own version of truth, or that of his editor. But there are also many instances when the “truth” corresponds to the beliefs of others. A paper may tailor its articles to the views of the public. Regular readers of specific publications have particular perspectives and expect the publication to live up to them. Should there be some deviation from the anticipated dogma, readership may suffer, since the readers are really looking for a validation of their own preconceived notions.

Of course it is possible, and, unfortunately, it is common, for a reporter or publication to mislead^iv while telling the truth. All that is necessary, even if there is no slant or misstatement conveyed by what actually appears, is the failure to print the whole truth. An article may be completely accurate as far as it goes, but context may be withheld. The same outcome results from the fact that papers have more information than they can print and there is no requirement that they print both sides of a story. So they wind up telling only part of the story, by means of editorial selection. Only what the publisher wants you to know will appear. What the publication contains is true – and probably what the reader thought anyway – but it's deceptive.

An extension of this form of misrepresentation^v involves the placement of stories – the prominence given them. A front page, “above the fold,” story will have much more impact than one on the inside, and it's far more likely to be read. Similarly one with a picture will more likely be read than one without. The picture, itself, may have nothing to do with the story,^vi but its presence will affect the way the reader will understand it, even if the association of the two leads to an incorrect conclusion. And a good headline writer can create a totally false impression for those who only scan the bold print.

More insidious, however, are those cases when the “news” is dictated by some particular governmental agency or by some pressure group. If, for example, a nation doesn't permit reporting from its territory, reporters will focus their attention on the places where they are permitted to work. The “news,” however damning it may seem, is only likely to come from free countries. Those who might be embarrassed by events on their soil often suppress it. And the news agencies acquiesce or simply lose interest in the situation.^vii

Or the offending party may dictate the “news.” In some lands the only news releases are those that come from the government, or those that are censored by it. Those in charge control whatever you read about, so as to ensure that the message you get is the one the authorities want you to believe. A local reporter who doesn't observe their policies and standards will not have press credentials for very long, and foreign reporters who act in a similar manner will soon be deported.

But those are the lucky ones. A government or a terrorist group whose story is not told in the manner desired may injure or kill the offender, or his family. It's a good way ensure that the story told is the one in keeping with the interests of the “persuader.”

The bottom line is that you can't believe everything you read, or learn from the media.^viii If that's all you know, you've got a big problem. And there are others who want to convince you of things that may not be true.

I'll have more to say about liars next week.

Next episode: “Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” – Don't trust anyone (except me).

i      This would include both errors of fact and interpretation. The former includes both misinformation and misunderstanding of the information available. For example, “Dewey Defeats Truman” was the result of insufficient information and an excess of wishful thinking. Misunderstanding of available information, however, may result from such considerations as cultural bias. For example, Americans understood (and the press uncritically reported) the results of the recent Israeli election as reflecting a desire for a foreign policy change – something important to them – while Israelis voted more on the basis of social issues, since there was consensus on the need for security.

ii      Admittedly, although the bias is usually high in the awareness of the reporter, although he may not view it as a bias, it is sometimes unconscious and the article is written in good faith with the writer seeing it as objective, but that doesn't change the reality that the actual facts may be presented in a slanted manner.

iii    In such cases the reporter may be slanting an article in the interests of job security.

iv     Lie.

v      Lying even though what is stated is true.

vi     It may be a “stock” photograph from a different time, or taken under different circumstances, which is either not acknowledged as such, or is made clear only in tiny print unlikely to be noticed by the reader.

vii    They justify their position by saying that everyone knows the situation, and there is no point in reporting it repeatedly, especially if it places other reporters at risk.

viii   Including the “tweet” you just received. Or the blog – like this one – you just read.

All The News That's Fit To Print

 

Who, what, where, when, and how. They're supposed to be the basis of journalism – the information, the points most important when writing an article for publication. And they must play some part, but certainly not the most important, in the process. If information were the primary consideration they might be – but it's not.

The most important criterion in journalism nowadays is selling the newspapers,ⁱ not the significance of the story or its completeness and accuracy. So there's only one question to be answered now: “Will it sell?”ⁱⁱ

In that respect there are several determinants that play a part. People are certainly interested in news, but even more so in news that feeds their biases. So, for example, if Palestinians butcher an Israeli familyⁱⁱⁱ it will play well in papers that serve Jewish populations and in papers that specialize in sensationalism.^iv For others it will be a one-shot affair, appearing, but hidden, because it cannot be completely ignored, but it's not something an editor with a contrary agenda or mandate wants to dwell on. And, of course, it will play well in those media serving populations that cheer the event, only in those outlets the slant will be different.^v

One criticism of a free press and the First Amendment is that it exists primarily for those able to pay the bills.^vi If you can afford to publish, hire editors and reporters, and control editorial policy, you'll be able to exercise your constitutional rights to the hilt.^vii You can give news space to advocacy journalists who don't hesitate to use loaded language and opinion in articles nominally labeled as news, and their bias – what they promote in those articles – is your bias. After all, that's why you hired them.

But there are other considerations. How do readers see themselves?; what are the characteristics by which they define their lives? Are they conservatives or liberals? Do they view themselves as intellectuals who look for articles with big words that won't be understood or appreciated by their “inferiors,” or are they simply interested in easy reading?^viii How big and how colorful should the pictures be? And how catchy the headlines? Do readers want to be surprised or given stories that fulfill their expectations?^ix In the unlikely event that Israelis were to slit the throats of Palestinian children there would certainly be detailed and well-illustrated front page stories, for prolonged periods, around the world – especially in Arab countries and in Europe. And in “liberal” papers everywhere.^x In fact, had that been the story recently, it would have blown reports of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear accident in Japan out of the water, and it would have dominated the United Nations Security Council debates, making Libya a second-class crisis.

And it is not simply the stories that sell papers, other features^xi include such additional items as comics, puzzles, advertising, entertainment listings, gossip, and, of course, sports. The mix of all these elements is the grist which you might think is produced by the media mill, but it is actually the fuel which makes the mill run. The publisher may provide the underlying bias – one governing both the slant of the “reporters” and the choice of the consumers – but it is hardly the only consideration used in crafting a media product. Whatever the publisher's politics, left or right, he's in business to make money. (Even liberals want to make money.) So he caters to his public's other wants as well.

But it's usually not a problem – at least in locales where there are multiple outlets. And that is now becoming everywhere, since the internet is available.^xii The publishers choose the issues^xiii and the public chooses the publishers who say what particular groups want to hear. The opinion columns will generally follow the opinion preferred by the organ, although there will often be a smattering of contrary views to demonstrate “even-handedness.” And letters to the web site or paper will usually reflect the view of the outlet as well – either because the readers already favor its perspective, or the letters published are selected to reinforce what has been written.

There's another group whose voice must be heard. That is the voice of the advertisers. Readers don't pay the bills. Advertisers do. But advertisers have a far greater interest in selling products than in selling political opinions. They tend to stay aloof of issues and maintain their neutrality to as great a degree as they can. Their advertisements are certain to appear in multiple outlets with conflicting politics in order to reach as many people as possible. They're only likely to withdraw their ads, for a period at least, if they get too many angry letters about a particular position expressed by a paper – one that embarrasses them. And they don't get embarrassed easily. It's bad for business. What's good is that a lot of people see the ad. Their politics are irrelevant.

What it all boils down to is the idea that when you read your favorite source of news you are getting what you pay for. It may not be true or complete, but it will be predictable and satisfying, especially if it promotes your righteous indignation. As Will Rogers said, “All I know is what I read in the papers.” He was, of course, being sarcastic. He was aware that the papers weren't to be trusted. But that's something that all of us should keep in mind.

Which leaves us with:

Who? Who can supply what the publisher believes and what the readers will buy? Don't waste your time with truth and accuracy. That's rarely the concern of the readers.

What? What do those readers believe already? It's worth reinforcing.

Where? Where can we hide a story we don't like but are obligated to print, and where can we place the advertisements so they won't be missed?

When? When will they be bored with the current story and looking for something new? New is more important than news.

Why? Why do readers actually take what they read seriously? But then who cares – as long as they buy the paper or turn to our internet site?

Next episode: “A Christmas Letter” – Unseasonal?

i     Actually that should read “media” rather than “newspapers.” The world is changing and with it the means of communication of information. Indeed, the nature of information is also changing, or at least the nature of what people consider information.

ii    In fact that's probably always been the case. If publications like the Weekly World News sell, it can only mean that truth and accuracy are not major considerations among the readers.

iii    As happened recently in Itamar, Israel.

iv    As they say in the trade, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

v    “Advocacy journalism,” the disguising of opinion as fact, can take any event and tailor it to the bias of the “journalist.”

vi   The same is true, by the way, for all propaganda. Whether paid for by bribes, threats, or industrial (or oil) contracts, the circulated points of view can be costly and, in the end, the consumer will pay for it.

vii   You're entitled to a contrary opinion. You have rights too. But no one is obliged to publicize it.

viii   Or viewing, or whatever.

ix    The classic, if apocryphal, example is the story titled “Man Bites Dog” rather than “Dog Bites Man” which would be more in keeping with people's stereotypes.

x    The same story, of course, would be played down in media with a different perspective.

xi    Especially features.

xii    The publisher of a local organ may be obliged to slant his news in keeping with local biases, but he is likely to have them anyway. National and international news are probably obtained from other sources.

xiii   The editors choose which articles will appear since there is not room for every story to appear. The result is that the stories chosen are usually those that say what the publisher wants said, and there is “no room” for those that might lead a reader to consider a different opinion or to focus on a different subject. Although editors usually profess independence, they will rarely disagree significantly from the ideas of whoever signs the paycheck – either because they chose the position based on the outlook of the organ, or they were chosen for the position based on their previously demonstrated slant.