The World is Talking. Global Politics

The Huffington Post has an interesting Q & A with Walter Pincus of the Washington Post. I found this part, from the introduction, particularly interesting (Pincus speaking on the topic of courage in journalism):

A new element of courage in journalism would be for editors and reporters to decide not to cover the president's statements when he or she--or any public figure--repeats essentially what he or she has said before. Journalistic courage should also include the decision not to publish in a newspaper or carry on a television or radio news show any statements made by government officials that are designed solely as a public relations tool, offering no new or valuable information to the public.

Here's the portion of the interview that covers this topic:

PINCUS: Courage to me is not printing what the President says when he has been saying the same thing day after day. And he's saying it so it will be printed, not because it's news. It's not news that the President thinks we're winning in Iraq, but the fact that you're printing it every day makes the public at large really sort of believe the President and begin to think maybe we are.

EDSALL: So at that juncture, when the president is simply repeating himself, what is the function of a newspaper?

PINCUS: I guess you don't print it.

EDSALL: What do you do instead?

PINCUS: You ought to have your own agenda. We had no problem printing Walter Reed [the prize-winning Washington Post expose of substandard conditions for wounded Iraq war veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.] because it was something so outrageous. Walter Reed is a metaphor. Walter Reed is a metaphor to show this administration talks about how important the war is, et cetera, et cetera, but here's an illustration, at Walter Reed they don't take care of the people that got hurt. I mean, I've got a story going now about refugees. There are four and a half million refugees and the President doesn't talk about it because it undermines the idea that we've freed this country.

I'm uncomfortable with the term "agenda," but I admire the honesty of it. Journalism has all kinds of agendas--some of them even overtly socio-political. Pincus would be comfortable if the whole enterprise were a bit more open about it. (Be careful not to conclude that his admits a so-called liberal or conservative bias. The press demonstrates all kinds of biases--some of them more harmful to the public than political bias.)

I agree with Pincus. It's time to stop manufacturing "news" out of promotional statements made by politicians. Much of what we encounter as "news" in journalism today springs from PR efforts by all kinds of groups to create spin. These efforts from politicians, and the journalists who enable them, fill up page upon page of our newspapers and hours of time on our news broadcasts. It makes one wonder if political reporters are able to do much more perform stenographic services.

News is always a manufactured product because news is always a result of looking at the world in particular ways and describing it in particular ways. If journalists were to resist the efforts to spin them (and us), it might clear the way for more examination of policy and governance. It might clear the way for more voices to be heard.

Ah, but you see, that would then mean news corporations would have to spend more money on reporters--good ones, the kind who know how to do something more than write down what people say. That ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Tag: journalism
Tag: rhetoric
Tag: politics