The Debates

The debates begin tomorrow, on Monday. For the Presidency. There will be two candidates trading blows – the candidates of the major parties. Neither is trusted by the majority of Americans, but those are the only ones from whom we will hear the justifications for their seeking the office. One of them has claimed that the election is rigged (against him), which is seen as an advanced excuse for losing the election if that should occur.

But it is difficult not to accept the idea that the election is rigged. Not against either of them, irrespective of the claims. And not against the lesser of evils, but against those of us who trust neither of them. Despite voter antipathy towards both of the major party contenders, and the calls for new ideas and new leadership, the media won't let us in on any third party candidates' views, and the debate managers won't let us hear what those who question the major party offerings have to say, so we can decide. While the majority of Americans reject both the Democrat and Republican, we are not being given the opportunity to hear other views and judge for ourselves. Is Johnson better than Clinton or Trump? We'll never know. All we know is that the lesser of two evils is evil.

It's not a big surprise. Long ago the media staked out their positions, favoring either the Democrats or Republicans, and they gain nothing by devoting their personnel and their space to anyone else. And it will simply confuse their readers, who have been reared in the context of a “two party system.” They haven't been prepared, as have citizens of other countries, for a political system that contains many parties – each claiming different ground, pressing different issues, and favoring different political leaders and different political factions among the public.

It would also make debates both more complicated and expensive. And that's not the American Way. We have a free press – as long as you support the major parties. The idea of a third party is not one that the media support. Or at least not one that they “advertise.”

But if neither the media nor those who run the debates support the concept that there may be more than two points of view – on problems, solution, and people – how can we? When they limit what we can hear they limit what we can think, and what we can do. They deprive us of the ability to choose, while telling us that “anyone can grow up to be President.” The reality is that “anyone” has be an advocate (or claim to be one) of the policies of one of the major parties. There is no room for independent thinking. It is disruptive and uneconomical. It would cause citizens to question the prejudices of the established media. It would not be well received by the ownership and editorial staff of an organ that has a long-standing policy of supporting a particular party or philosophy.

A good example is the New York Times. It is a paper that, for the last half-century, has only supported Democrats for the Presidency. We have had Presidents who were members of the Democratic Party and never had a day during their stewardship when the country wasn't at war. The Times supported them. There have been Republican Presidents during times of peace. The Times has opposed them. Economic difficulties, as the “Gray Lady” has chosen to define them, are the fault of the Republicans, as is any racial strife. Even if they occur under a Democratic President.

Today (surprise, surprise), just in time for us to evaluate the candidates in debate having been primed to know who is right, the Times endorsed Secretary Clinton. She was recommended as “A leader with the intellect and courage to face hard challenges.” She “has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas.” It continues

Running down the other guy won't suffice to make [the] argument [although they promise to reveal to us tomorrow “why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history]. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn't Donald Trump.

The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton's capacity to rise to them.

In view of the fact that so many polls have displayed the belief that she is unfit for the office, she will certainly have “to rise to them.” And the frequent misstatements she has made while creating her image – some would call them “lies” rather than “misstatements” – make it difficult to accept her campaign promises without questions.

This is not a defense of Mr. Trump who is also not trusted by voters and would also be a bad choice. But the great flaws of both make it important that other points of view be presented to the American people. One of the two major party candidates is likely to win. They always do, and it will probably be Secretary Clinton. In either case we all lose. But if other ideas are presented either in the press or during debates we will at least have the opportunity of having more to discuss next time. I'm not so naïve as to believe that a third party candidate will ever be properly covered by the press or allowed to participate in future debates, but if their ideas become part of the conversation, Democrats and Republicans will have to discuss them. And we'll all gain from that.

The End

Whatever happened to principles? Whatever happened to reasoned debate? Have we all accepted the perspective of the lawyers we see on television?ⁱ It’s right there on “LA Law,” “Boston Legal,” and “The Good Wife,” among others, and the common theme seems to be that, as so many coaches have put it, “winning isn't everything – it's the only thing.” Right and wrong are secondary issues if they're considered at all. It's all about winning. The rationalization that everyone deserves good representation (even criminals)ⁱⁱ is just so much bunkum. It certainly doesn't apply to those who cannot afford good representation. But for those who can pay, the goal is to beat the opposition, even if you have to hold your nose while you do it.

And I, an ultracrepidarian of the first water (if self-proclaimed experts are so ranked) understand the legal system as one akin to sports. Getting the edge on the opposition is more important than being better than him. If you win, you are better. Virtue is not its own reward – winning is. If you can convince a jury that the party you represent is right, no matter how you do it, or whether it is true or not, you win. And that's all that counts.

All that counts. Yes. The first decision is that your client has to win. Only afterward is a plan formulated as to how to accomplish this goal. It may require the discrediting the opposition – the presentation of “facts” that support your claim and the exclusion of those that suggest otherwise. It may require distortion, suppression of information, intimidation, or “technicalities,” but as long as you achieve your goal and aren't shown to have violated the law or “legal ethics,” you're home free. Or probably not free but very expensive. But all's fair in love and law.ⁱⁱⁱ

What it all boils down to is that first decision. And irrespective of the facts, it is that your client wins. Once the end is clear, the means are inevitable. The interpretation of whatever information is available must justify whatever you've already decided. First the decision, then the evidence. It's like “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.” First the sentence. Then the verdict.

Unfortunately that's the way too much of what we experience originates. The motive is not always venal, and participants would vigorously deny any intent to mislead. They would decry any suggestion that the end justifies the means. They would defend their actions with the contention that they are trying to get at the truth. Lawyers and other physical and mental athletes may put winning above “right,” but those of whom I speak would maintain that what they do is in the interest of truth and right.

Perhaps the largest marketplace for the attitude that the end justifies the means can be found in the media.^iv From a “macro” standpoint that means the bias of the organ itself – the viewpoint of the owner or owners of the organization distributing what it claims to be the news. While we pride ourselves on our free press – on the right of a publication to express its opinions openly – we assume that what is presented as objective news is neutral. That, however, is often not the case. By the selection of subjects and articles presented^v the media tell us what is important for us to know, and by the choices of photos, captions, and headlines they implant their prejudices^vi in us. And all-too-often they use unchecked material if it corresponds to their own biases.^vii Fact-checking is of greatest value when it raises questions about a view contrary to your own.^viii Otherwise it's a luxury that is often bypassed in the interests of the need to “scoop” everyone else while limiting costs.^ix After all, a free press is expensive, so only the rich can make their views known to a wide audience. The piper calls the tune.

So if the publisher/editor/whatever has a bias, and that is almost certainly the case, it will most probably be reflected in the way news is presented. “Journalists” will be employed who use their articles to promote a point of view – subjective rather than objective reporting of “news” by “advocacy journalists”; use will be made of releases from organs known to falsify, with the publication of questionable (or obviously false) “information” in the interest of “balance”; there will be prominent placement of false claims with inconspicuous admission of their inaccuracy several days later – if there is any correction at all; and, since most people only read the beginnings of articles, that will be a good place to present self-serving claims, while reserving refutations for areas less likely to be read like somewhere near the end of the article, especially if it is on another page.

Perhaps the reporters and editors act as they do in order to keep their jobs,^x or perhaps they have sought positions in media organizations that share their prejudices. The bottom line, however, is that the conclusions come first, and the “facts” presented are arranged to support those conclusions. It's very much like law. Discredit the opposition – especially if your own case is weak. Journalistic ethics, like legal ethics mustn't be allowed to get in the way of the mission,^xi especially if they can be avoided. In this case the goal is to convince the audience that your ideas should be accepted.

That's the problem. Our minds are made up. Facts only serve to confuse people so we only tell others what we want them to hear and believe. In journalism as in law, the end justifies the means.

 

Next episode: “Justifies?” – It's not always so clear.

I        I can't believe that the profession would tolerate such behavior in real life.

ii        Especially those who pay well.

iii      The same is true in sports. Whether professional or “amateur” (for example college athletics), they're big money-makers, and bending the rules, or ignoring faulty decisions in your favor while protesting those harmful to your team, are necessary evils. They're not even evil. They're part of the game.

iv       This is hardly the first time I've expressed this opinion and it's probably not going to be the last. We are dependent on information in virtually all we do, and we always want to know what is happening locally, nationally, and internationally. We want to believe what we read and what we see. But the majority of Americans – not only the conspiracy theorists – don't trust the “news” presented to them by the media.

v       There has to be selection since there is not room to present everything that is touted as news.

vi       The TRUTH.

vii      Retraction of a prominently made claim in an inconspicuous location a few days later may not be seen, but publishers' lawyers assure the publishers that it meets their obligations.

viii     It is certainly a FALSE idea that no one in his right mind would believe. It results from the propaganda of the evil, and must be corrected.

ix       A free press is actually very expensive. First Amendment rights are primarily the rights of those who can afford them.

x        Never take seriously the owner who loudly proclaims a “hands off” policy when it comes to reporting the news. Employees don't – they know better. They know what is expected of them.

xi       For the athletes there's the concept of “sportsmanship,” But no one pays much attention to that unless the public complains and there's a risk of losing some of the audience and revenues.

Nicéphore Niépce And The Sight Bite

Somewhere in my room – perhaps on my computer – is a photograph of my mother when she was a child. It's a group picture, and in it there are also my grandmother and several of my mother's siblings. I suspect I could figure out my mother's age at the time by determining which of her siblings are present in the picture and which aren't. Perhaps they weren't born yet. And if I can gauge the ages of her brothers and sisters I can guess at hers as well.

But even though I love the picture, determining her age and the date of the photograph are not too important. The sepia color of earlier photographs had been replaced by black, and the clothes of the subjects tell me that it's from early in the twentieth century, and I'm more interested in the picture itself, than in my mother's age. I'm interested in the formality of the pose, the clothing, the facial expressions, and all that tells me a little of the time.  Not that I'm not concerned about my mother, but I have many pictures of her and I prefer to remember the live and loving individual than the pictures of her. For she, herself, was pretty as a picture. No, so much prettier.

And the same is true of a photograph of my father in 1916. He was 13 at the time. It was probably taken a few years after the one of my mother but that, too, is of little consequence. Those pictures, and others, can give us some insight into those we recognize, but they tell us more of the people we don't know, and the times in which they were taken. For example, the sepia photograph of my grandfather standing, and wearing a nice suit of the end of the nineteenth century, in front of a painted backdrop, contains the only visual memory of a man I never met, but who was very important in his time to those in the New York Jewish community, and very important to me since. And I have an elementary-school class photograph showing my wife's mother which tells me a little of a woman I only met many years later, and it illustrates a little of the time in which she lived. And the panoramic photo of me with the entire population of camp during my first year there (1946) tells a different story, as do the three dimensional slides taken at my brother-in-law's wedding. Similarly, the albums of memories of my children's weddings remind me of those joyous events.

We have alwaysⁱ looked for ways to record the world and our experiences for our own information and to convey ideas to others. Long before there was any recorded languageⁱⁱ some form of homo erectus, perhaps neanderthal, was “painting” pictures in caves.ⁱⁱⁱ Whether they were decorations, communications, or spiritual objects isn't clear, but the need to record the world around them is clear.

That's always been the case. Throughout subsequent history people have produced pictures on vessels, jewelry, wall hangings, in book illustrations, and wherever else they found the space. It was their way of showing each other, and future generations, what they saw around them. So the more the picture reflected reality, the better.^iv   It got to a point when paintings were an accurate representation of reality, and we know much of our history because of them, but they took a long time to produce and only resulted from a sincere desire for art, or a commission.  And soon enough the desire for more imaginative images developed, and impressionism was born. And then abstract art. The pictures still represented reality, but the reality was the image that appeared in the artist's mind.

But although paintings were realistic, they weren't satisfactory as evidence or as undeniable representations of what they depicted. Something was needed that took less time and was more accurate, and showed the reality that was lacking with paintings. Concurrently – primarily in the nineteenth century – photography was being developed. The concept of reproduction of permanent images by use of a camera^v and material coated with light-sensitive material goes to Thomas Wedgwood at about the turn of the nineteenth century, but his pictures weren't light-fast. Nonetheless, he had a revolutionary idea.

Many experimenters followed, and Nicéphore Niépce produced what is generally regarded as the first permanent photograph in 1826^vi – a picture taken out his window. Not long after, in the mid 1850's, James Clerk Maxwell proposed a method of producing color photographs^vii using colored filters, and the first example of this technique displayed was by Thomas Sutton in 1861.

Many others made rapid and significant improvements in both the apparatus for taking the pictures, the materials of the picture itself, the length of time necessary for a photograph, and the subject matter shown. Numerous pictures by Matthew Brady during the American Civil War (1861-1865) evidenced the war and the people of the time, including President Lincoln.^viii His work provided actual documentation of the events of the day – not representations filtered through the mind of the artist – and earned him the designation of “first photojournalist.” And the introduction of motion pictures^ix made it possible to see accurate representations of the events of the time. They were very accurate, and they were quickly adopted into our culture and that of countries around the world. They could be used to record reality in a way that was unmatched.^x They served to document an era.^xi

But, in addition to documenting the times, pictures can also mislead. The second commandment^xii makes it clear that the representation of animals and people should be forbidden. The purpose was to prevent any such representation from being worshiped, but it was also recognized that there was no way in which any picture of G-d could actually illustrate His true nature. And, in the eyes of believers, that made any pictures – paintings and photographs among them – inherently undesirable and unacceptable. For others, any photographic intrusion should be avoided.^xiii As did the development of methods to convey misimpressions using photographs. They could be as simple as cropping someone out of a picture so as to misrepresent a situation, or as sophisticated as the insertion of someone into a picture, which was done so often, and with such apparent reality, as in “Zelig.”^xiv

There is also the objection by many who object to the intrusion on their privacy that the medium presents. Those who are prominent hate the paparazzi. For many of the rest of us the surveillance has become so commonplace^xv that it is oppressive. It is incontestable that such surveillance cuts down on crime^xvi and makes the evaluation of those activities more manageable. But it also gives people the feeling that they live in a society in which they're constantly being watched – the world of 1984 and Big Brother.^xvii It gives them that feeling because it's true.

And with Photoshop-type “corrections” and falsifications of manifest and tangible beings and objects, it is no longer possible to believe such reproductions as appear to be genuine. Sometimes they're just selected frames from a longer video or a short strip intended to make a particular point. Like sound bites taken out of context, so are these “sight bites.” Add to that the fact that everyone has a video camera nowadays. They started out as car telephones but they've metamorphosed quickly. Now everyone can document or falsify as he sees fit. It started out with cave paintings over 40,000 years ago and took until only a little over two centuries ago before we got to what we know as photography, and another century and a half before we worked out the kinks. We had gone from representations of what was around us to a medium that we could rely on for truth. How quickly we've learned to pervert it and use it for our own purposes. I can trust the photos of my ancestors. Will my great-grandchildren take pictures of me seriously? I doubt it.

Ain't science wonderful?

Next episode: “Jihad, Rape, And Profiling” – More on our view of reality.

i       Whatever that means.

ii      No way existed to record it. Although some form of language probably developed between a few hundred thousand and a few million years ago – it's a topic of major dispute since there's no way to determine it for certain – it was only a little over five thousand years ago that written language came on the scene as anything other than a device for counting.

iii     The oldest cave paintings are dated about 40,000 BCE.

iv     Sometimes, especially in portraits, reality needed a little help in order that future generations better appreciated the true nature of the individual being depicted.

v       The “camera obscura” had been around for a long time. Chinese philosopher Mo Ti (Fifth Century BCE) had notice the inverted image produced by the pinhole device and traced the image to form a picture.

vi      More or less. Dates of 1825, 1826, and 1827 are found in various places.

vii     As early as 1848, a color photograph was demonstrated but the colors were extremely light-sensitive and could only be seen for a short time and in dim light.

viii    Actually, Brady's first photo of Lincoln was in 1860 while he was running for office.

ix      Movies, not flip-book “moving pictures.”

x       They're also often a waste of both time and space. Facebook et al produce more pictures than we know what to do with. Most are personal or cute and are of little documentary value, except personally. Most are not altered but they're not very interesting.

xi      “Dearie, do you remember when they waltzed to the Sousa Band. My wasn't the music grand. ...”

xii      And its explication in ancient Jewish texts.

xiii    There were other reasons to reject this form of documentation. The phtographing of a party they attended was the trigger event for the Harvard Law Review article in 1890, by Warren and Brandeis by which the concept of privacy was popularized.

xiv     Soon enough, using three D printers and artificial intelligence, we'll be able to keep our ancestors with us as long as we live.

xv      Including units that document all police activity.

xvi     As well as our running red lights.

xvii    It's a little paradoxical that our society has embraced all forms of technology that utilize tracking chips, like GPS elements. Those in control – like the government – can monitor all our movements this way. People disparage surveillance when they think they don't control it, but are eager to adopt the technology when they think it is helpful.

The Times They Are a-Changin'

Happy Groundhog's Day.

It struck me yesterday that it was a good time to make predictions, about the weather in the next few months and the Super Bowl to be played today. But the prediction I make will be on a different subject: The New York Times will be in the sunlight but continue to drop the ball.

Around the world, the Times is viewed as the standard for journalistic excellence. Certainly that's the way its staff and publisher view themselves. And they're sure that their opinions are similarly enlightened, only rarely printing dissenting views – and even then apparently with the aim of eliciting reactions which will set the errant commentator or correspondent right by familiarizing him with “truth.” That truth will be provided by readers who will set the confused writer straight. Those who argue are, after all, disputing the “newspaper of record.”

And, indeed, the paper may be the holder of a significant journalistic record, though it isn't surprising if it's not a record that others in the media will fight to take away. Even if they are more “worthy” of it, none is likely to challenge “the gray lady” for bragging rights in the field of making mistakes. I looked, last night and this morning, at the paper's record over the last full month – January, 2014 – to get a sense of how often it erred, since I have long questioned the accuracy of the purveyor of “all the news that's fit to print.” What I found were two hundred ninety corrections of articles and pictures. (Some of the articles had more than one correction, so the number is really higher.) It's hardly a rigorous scientific survey, but on an annualized basis (290 times twelve months), and assuming that January was a typical month, that's nearly three thousand five hundred errors in a year. If I'm off by a few hundred in either direction, though, it doesn't change the meaning of the findings. I don't mean to suggest that they were all significant mistakes (they weren't), but that there is a problem in the paper to which people turn for accuracy – a paper that people trust. The trust may be misplaced. The automatic assumption that what it says is true is invalid.

Adding to the problem are some other concerns. The corrections are merely the errors to which they admit. They can't deny them. There are others of which they are notified that they dispute or disclaim. (I once had a letter published in the Times in which there was a misquotation of my words, and I had a long fight with them before it was corrected.) They “stand by” their positions even though serious questions may be raised about what they have reported. And I suspect there are additional misstatements that are not brought to their attention by readers, and others which they prefer not to advertise if they have discovered them on their own. It's not likely that the paper's ombudsman would turn them in, or that they would admit to what they could finesse. Even if a correction were to be made, a small print statement, after the fact, and on an inside page is less likely to be read or taken seriously than the original statement. That initial statement will have a far greater impact than the clarification.

The problem as stated, however, only refers to the facts. It's harder to deny errors of fact than admit to illogical or misleading opinions. Such opinions, reflecting the positions (biases) of the staff of the paper, remain as testaments to their point of view irrespective of the strength of their arguments (or its lack) and the reasoning of those who disagree. They're less likely than facts to be disputed because they are labeled as opinion, and because the opinions coincide with those of most of the readership. After all, that's why they buy the paper. They already favor that point of view. But their opinions, though just as inclined (or more so) to be questionable as are many of their “facts,” are likely to get a free pass. And they will play a large part in creating the views of those readers who have not yet formed their own opinions and are ready to accept the judgment of what they see as the source of wisdom. Even when it is not Groundhog's Day, the gray lady operates largely in the shadows.

And that's the way it will probably remain. The Times's reputation will not suffer from it's sloppiness, lack of fact-checking and biases, but rather it will receive praise for its willingness to correct the errors it has made. And that willingness will raise the reputation of the paper rather than triggering a reevaluation based on the errors themselves. A party that is favored always gets the benefit of the doubt.

And there will be six more weeks of winter.

All The News ... Addendum

Time passes. And we think of things we “shoulda' said.” Usually that phenomenon occurs immediately after a particular conversation. It is a missed opportunity. It's too late now to make a clever remark or pose a particular argument that would have gotten everyone's attention just a few moments ago.

Ideas, however, are not static. And they are not bound by time.

I was reading a previous blog that I wrote a little over a year ago, “All The News That's Fit To Print.” Of course I agree with myself, but I could have said more. And perhaps I could have emphasized other ideas. In it I pointed out that the primary aims of a publication are to sell papers and to publicize the publisher's opinion.ⁱ Thus the media slants are predictable even before a story is read or viewed by members of the public – a public usually having the same view anyway.ⁱⁱ The media weren't giving us the objective truth we had a right to expect.

I haven't changed my view about the facts – and these are facts. But my perspective is a little different. I still view the various media as biased in a wide variety of was – both in terms of political judgments and international perspectives. I still think the papers are excellent for wrapping fish,ⁱⁱⁱ and I think that they have the view that while it is their job to criticize others, any criticism of them is an impingement on the First Amendment. With those criticisms, though, there's more to be said.

I've come to the conclusion that that's their job. Mostly they're relatively honest^iv and it's the responsibility of the public to sort out the differences of opinion and to try to get a more objective view of events by consulting a wide variety of media with different prejudices. It's time we realized and accepted the fact that there is no such thing as a free press. At least not in the sense that one can get unbiased news about all important matters, and get it from a from a single site. And there are are many causes for this problem.

First of all, the public has little patience for “hard news.” Its great interest is in sensational material, especially in the detailing of the pain of others. In addition to all the murders and other crime stories that are featured, we find that pain in reports on the poor of our own country, as well as those elsewhere. We devour stories about wars and natural catastrophes. As long as the problems are those of others, we are fascinated by them and search them out. We savor Schadenfreude, so that's what the media provides.

Adding to the problem is the fact that accuracy is not a critical factor, but speed is. Publishing first, takes precedence over getting it right. In fact, there is not enough time for the media to get it right. Like a lie, a rumor “will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”^v To be first, therefore,^vi little time can be wasted on the checking of facts – or those statements presented as facts. Indeed, notwithstanding pompous statements about “truth” and “accuracy,” it is not always in the best interests of the media spend the time to present material correctly and objectively. Rather, it is the goal to achieve a certain response on the part of those who receive the information, and to achieve that response first – before someone else convinces them of an alternative “truth.” The deadline dictates the news.

And news usually reflects a point of view rather than objectivity.^vii The message is the message. But that has always been the case, and, like today, those in the past who carried new information either believed what they had heard or been told, or they related “facts” that they wanted the audience to believe. Some may even have believed it themselves, although they probably told the story in such a way as to emphasize their beliefs rather than the facts. Travelers related what they considered important when questioned about the place they had left. That represented “incidental” news. But sometimes the goal was more calculated. Pheidippides ran to Sparta to get Athenian troops needed for the battle against the Persians at Marathon – at least that was Herodotus's story.^viii It was the messenger who carried good or bad news.^ix

Wandering minstrels followed, and town criers as well.  And they, like the editors of today, chose what we would hear.  But the “news,” at least that which was reported, was old. Even the introduction of newspapers in the seventeenth century left the public with old news. Perhaps it was more recent than previously, but it was old. That problem was solved with the telegraph, radio, television, and internet, and now we get the news while it is happening – sometimes even before.^x This is especially the case when the media are controlled by the state. For them, the news is an extension of foreign, as well as domestic policy,^xi and it must be doled out to the public carefully, expressing the ideas that will be of greatest use to the government. Politicians recognize the power of the pen.

And the same is true of history, which is, in essence, old “news.” Using old reports, such as those in newspapers, or history books written long after the fact, is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.”^xii That's quite in line with the idea that the written word, even now, should be considered in the light of the prejudices of the writer. So the best historians are those who sift through contemporary documents and try to understand them rather than those who rely on the interpretation of others. The record of events more likely to be correct than reports of events.

So if, like Will Rogers, all you know is what you read in the newspapers, you'd better read a lot of them. Which, fortunately, you can now do thanks to the internet. You can read all about it in papers from coast to coast and internationally as well. You can sample both governmental and private biases around the world. The responsibility for what you read, and what you believe, however, is yours. The obligation to get the facts belongs to you. You can't blame the media for slanting what they present. You'd do the same. If you only read what you're going to agree with, you're wasting your time. You could write those articles yourself.

That's what I shoulda' said. Rather than blame the media for doing what I would do – what anyone interested in making money and influencing people would do – I should have acknowledged my own responsibility to learn the truth. And it is my responsibility. No one will do it for me.  I'll be my own editor.

Next episode: “The Absolute Truth” – I'm Sir Oracle. Don't question me.

i     The paper will claim otherwise, saying that the staff are free to express their own opinions. The staff, however, having been approved by the publisher, are likely to share his views. At least if they want to keep their jobs. Some papers boast balance and evenhandedness and hire columnists with contrary opinions, but those with different views are certain to be outnumbered significantly by those who express the “party line,” lest anyone think that the minority opinion has any validity. Obviously it doesn't. But the publisher has established his credentials as one who is “objective” and who wants to air all sides of a story.

ii    The bias of a newspaper is likely to be known to the purchaser before he opens it. The Village Voice will speak out in extremely liberal terms, while the Wall Street Journal will record a much more conservative perspective; the New York Times will multiply Israel's faults while the New York Sun will always see the bright side. (The same is true of other media. NPR, for example, is likely to have a liberal outlook while FOX News will be conservative; Atlantic Monthly will be liberal and National Review conservative.) To a large degree this is a marketing as well as a political position. Each outlet finds its niche, and each reader buys the paper that he knows will echo his prejudices. And from that viewpoint, it works.

iii    I didn't say that at the time, but it's true.

iv    Notwithstanding the low opinion of the media as held by the public and as demonstrated in polls which evaluate the performance of many professions and industries.

v     Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon.

vi    And that's a major goal of the media.

vii    It's a mistake to take at face value either “All the news that's fit to print” or “Fair and balanced” reporting. They respond to both temporal and doctrinal dictates as much (or perhaps more) than the objective facts. In some markets one is more attractive to the public, in some markets the other is favored. It's unfortunate that much of what they say is taken seriously. Some of the media make a show of “evenhandedness,” but it's clear that it's only pretense.

viii   Plutarch tells it differently.

ix    And he was sometimes shot for his efforts.

x     The scheduling of particular events, or their anticipation, coupled with the need to be first in reporting, my lead to errors. For example, Dewey did not defeat Truman. And the reporting of election winners, reporting that occasionally needs to be revised, also occurs.

xi    Clausewitz was too limited in his perspective.

xii    He also wrote “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” A cute remark, and one illustrative of the unreliability of such printed reports.

Gossip

I saw a newspaper article recently in which two writers accused an educator of psychological and physical abuse. The evidence presented suggests that the accusations were true,ⁱ but that's not the point. Clearly the article was exciting. It was an exposé that, by its front page placement, was sure to attract readers. The content can only be described as lashon hara (gossip – literally “evil speech” in Hebrew) and the accuracy of the information doesn't change that.ⁱⁱ

Whether true or not, the article must have been harmful to the individual accused – even if he was prepared to shake it off. And it certainly raised questions for me about the writers. According to the Talmud,ⁱⁱⁱ the spreading of lashon hara “kills”^iv three – the accused of course, but also the speaker and the one listening. The letters in response to the article make it clear that there were many who were damaged by “listening” – not a big surprise when dealing with a front-page exposé. Some supported the accusations, and some were hurt by them. In fact, one of the letters contained accusations against another party – one not mentioned in the original article – against whom similar accusations were made.

There are authorities who deal with abuse, even in the country – not ours – where the alleged actions were said to have occurred,^v but there was no evidence that the article's authors had contacted them.^vi More likely they probably believed that their article would provide the information needed by those who were able to correct the situation and the publicity would force them to do so. And the authors would probably argue that those capable of correcting the problem were aware of it and didn't act, so that the publicity was warranted and no purpose would have been served by their going to those authorities. Moreover they claim the abuse is widespread, and that it is largely accepted and ignored by all parties.

Perhaps that is the case. But while the spreading of such information (read “gossip”) is occasionally permitted – for example when someone is entering into a relationship that he would avoid if he knew all the facts – the limitations are severe. In this particular article, the authors wrote, “it’s long been an open secret that …,” so it's hard to argue that this article would provide information unavailable elsewhere. Ideally, however, for such an act to be justifiable, there should be no better way to deal with the bad situation than the spreading of that “information.” And, according to Jewish law, the witnesses to an anticipated specific criminal act should have first warned the party that the act was prohibited, and they should have indicated the penalty for it. Perhaps the authors consider their article to be such a warning, although neither a particular anticipated offense is named nor is its penalty specified. Rather, this is the kind of article in which the accused is guilty. There is no presumption of innocence.^vii Unfortunately, that's the way it is with gossip. There's no balance. It's all accusation.

We're all guilty every time we start talking about someone else. Whatever our goals, whether to hurt someone else or to build ourselves up – or even to help someone else – it would be better if we found another way. In the particular case described, the authors might have spoken with the accused, letting him know the charges that had been given them, and allowed him to respond to them.^viii That would certainly contribute to fairness and fact-checking.  And they might have presented the charges to the appropriate authorities and let them know that if the charges were true, and fitting penalties were not applied, this would be revealed to the reading public. There would be no need to name the accused in such a story. The responsibility would belong to those in charge. After all, societies are formed because we are willing to give up some “rights” in order to gain protection from those who would harm us. And that harm is not only physical, but may be psychological or social.

Admittedly, that approach does not sell newspapers any more than not spreading gossip builds up the image of the silent one. All it leaves is the opportunity for someone else to be the bearer of ill tidings.^ix Threatening to expose those in power who are charged with protecting us but do not do so, however, may be a lot more productive in the long run. And speaking to someone of perceived offenses – “chastising the sinner” – may similarly have a greater effect than spreading rumors. It may not work, but it's worth a try.

Next episode: “One Mind With But A Single Thought” – To each his (or her) own.

i     Or at least used to be true.

ii    According to the Chofetz Chayim, the most important authority on the subject, lashon hara can best be described as any speaking about individuals, whether the comments are favorable or not. Favorable statements may evoke negative responses and comments by the listener.

iii    Arachin, 15b.

iv     “is harmful to” probably conveys the meaning better.

v     Although it is claimed that the kind of abuse about which the article is concerned is a general phenomenon, happening in many institutions.

vi    Nor could I find any indication that the matter had been discussed by them with the accused. The article was long and I might have missed it, but I don't think so. 

vii    Even if that should be the case, the retraction will not be as prominent as the accusation and it certainly won't have the same impact.

viii   Perhaps they did, but it's not at all clear from the article.

ix     In the case of a newspaper story, that means that someone else might print first. Journalistic ethical standards probably exist justifying the decision to print first and ask questions afterward – at least that's the impression I get from the media – but to the non-journalist it has the appearance of trying to cash in on gossip.

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.