This semester we have looked at
American mass media as more than just words and images on a page or
screen. We started to dissect the end product. What makes a story a
newsworthy story? What makes a string of words a headline? What is
the relationship between the producers of the news (journalists,
television pundits, etc.) and the media-immersed public that absorbs
it? These are the questions that we pondered, and in doing so learned
a great deal about why and how we get our news.
I found one aspect of the
class particularly interesting: the country's increasing distrust in
the media. I won't talk about the future of mass media, or the
relationship between blogs and print journalism—these topics have
been exhaustively and well covered by my classmates. Instead, I will
look at some of the reasons why there exists a great deal of mistrust
between the media and the public, and how the media can sometimes be
used as a counter-productive tool for manipulation.
For many years Americans trusted mass media. Seemingly timeless institutions like The Washington Post and The New York Times were fancied as unbiased producers of all the news that's fit to print. On television, iconic figures like Walter Cronkite had earned a meritorious spot in living rooms across the country. This simply isn't the cast anymore. A 62 to 22 percent majority of Americans do not trust print journalism, and a 58 to 22 percent majority do no trust television.
But why? The reasons are many and they very greatly, and to surmise why Americans no longer trust the mass media would require much more time and intelligence, two things this author frankly doesn't have. I can, however, explain why I don't trust the media, and I can do it in two words—Frank Luntz.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it.
That axiom has been given as advice for everything from job interviews to college application essays. Why then, is it becoming the unofficial masthead slogan of mass media? Because it's true; often, what's being said is less important than how it's being said, an idea long thought of but only recently thrust back into the mainstream media by pollsters and public relations gurus like Luntz.
Both print and television journalism should be fair and accurate, a balancing act that is often easier to uphold in theory than it is in application. But fairness and accuracy should always be at the bottom line of news, and it is not anymore. In an ideal world, a newsworthy event would happen, and the facts of that event would be aggregated and disseminated through print, radio, and television. In our world, the not-so-simple real world, news is aggregated but then polished before dissemination. It is passed through a lexicon of well-thought-out words and phrases, and the end product is irreversibly changed. The factual information in the story remains the same, but the story's impact is altered greatly.
Global warming – the falsification of “another side to the story”
Take, for instance, global warming. Last year, the United Nations scientific panel stated that a global warming trend is is supported by “unequivocal” evidence, and that it is “very likely” that humans are a large contributing factor. Ideally, media in all its forms would be used to spread this news. As mentioned earlier, however, the use of the media isn't always ideal.
Instead of using the media as a tool to pull the American people by the collar and make us realize our collective, negative impact on the planet, the media was used as a tool to impede the combating of global warming. To Frank Luntz, the fight was not between humans and our worsening environment, but instead a battle of communications.
Luntz's first step was to, obviously, change the wording. Fearing that global warming was too alarmist, he pushed for the substitutive term “climate change.” It might sound like a trite complaint, but in the midst of an environmental problem, should the focus of the government be what to call the problem in the media instead of how to fix it? On its face, it sounds silly to posit that changing two words can have a drastic effect, but it does. If it did not, would Luntz be cashing six-figure checks signed by the highest of governmental officials? We in class saw first hand the polling methods employed by Luntz to find out exactly how Americans respond to words, and he himself stated explicitly that wording is just as important as an issue.
Such an action is harmless compared to his other suggestion. In a memo written in 2002 to the president regarding how to handle the global warming debate in the media, Luntz states:
The scientific debate is closing [against Republicans] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.
The administration followed Luntz's advice, and questioned the legitimacy of the science that stated that global warming was a concern. This sentiment was, in turn, relayed through all news mediums. In the case of global warming, the parsing of words and the administrations' manufacturing of news-friendly sound bites and press conference statements actually fabricated a borderline fictitious “other side” to the scientific community's statements. The media was used as a tool for manipulation.
It's also who said it.
Frank Luntz works tactfully behind the scenes. He decides what words should be used, and figures out how the administration that employs him can inject their opinions into mass media. To put it simply, he figures out how to get the media to do his bidding.
That's not always necessary, however, if an administration, corporation, or group of people can become the media. Again, on its face such a statement sounds silly and would prompt one to ask, “what does that even mean, become the media?” It is exactly what it sounds like—planting coercive agents within the media to promote a certain idea. Instead of manipulating the public by altering how something is said, these agents manipulate by emphasizing who is is saying it.
In our world of around-the-clock media immersion, the television provides nonstop news coverage on almost every topic. Newscasters turn to pundits and analysts to present their opinions, and those opinions often themselves become news. In the ideal world to which I often reference, this can be a great tool to further the discourse on pressing news topics. Of course, that's not always the case.
The authority of analysts and experts is often only as great as the title by which they are referenced. Does anyone really know what credentials and qualifications one must have before CNN or MSNBC champions him or her an expert? What do newspapers mean when they call someone a respected analyst? There is a foggy gray area surrounding this aspect of the mainstream media, and it leads to a great amount of distrust amongst the public.
Take, for instance, the case of military analysts. An amazing article in the New York Times by David Barstow succinctly captures the egregious manipulation of the mass media:
These men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
There it is, in black and white. The only gray area in this case is that of the haze around the smoking gun—the government attempted and successfully used the media as a tool for manipulation.
Salt in the wound – the response and future.
The only thing worse than the outright manipulation of the media is the public response to it. I am left asking simply one question: where is the outrag? How are people not livid at the fact that the administration employs someone like Luntz, a pollsters whose main task is to manipulate? It's not like he is coy about it. He is explicit in his intent, and he almost brags about his success. The title of his most recent book is Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear, and I'm not making this up! In the case of the proven-coercive military analysts and other “experts,” how can people not question the legitimacy of all the people who weigh in on topics in the media? I contend that people simply don't have the time. Who, realistically, can perform a back ground check on all the members of a major network's analysts or a newspaper's experts?
The news we receive must be fair and balanced, not the primped product of an administration or company's press relations team. This conduct is dangerous. If the backbone of democracy is the free exchange of ideas, and the media is what allows that exchange, is such manipulation not an attack on our practice of democracy?
Fear not, all is not lost and the mainstream mass media is not irreversibly corrupt. Yes, it is hard for the average person to parse all the information hurled at him, but luckily he doesn't have to. Therein lies a great power of the blogs, as well as a realization I took away from this class. The blogosphore has greatly changed how news is transmitted and received, but it can also be a great force in preserving accuracy and legitimacy. Blogs can function as watchdogs, actively working to seek out the coercive elements and sly wording of the mainstream media. As the scope and range of the blogosphere increases, so does its ability to regulate the mass media, to protect our free exchange of ideas, and to protect our democracy.
Comments