I post my monthly article for the Albuquerque Tribune here once it has appeared in the paper. This is today's:
FAIR, NOT BALANCED
Airing both sides of the story is admirable, but sometimes objectivity gets in the way of facts
By Arthur Alpert
Back in February 1950, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy waved what he called a list of Communists subverting the nation. Newspapers reported that "objectively" – without probing the truth of the charges – and McCarthy soared to power
Last month, Karl Rove said "liberals" didn’t want to go after the 9/11 terrorists. Two days later, an Associated Press story opened this way:
"Democrats said Thursday that White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for accusing liberals of wanting "therapy and understanding" for the Sept. 11 attackers, escalating partisan rancor that threatens to consume Washington."
Continuing, the author cited recent, far-out rhetoric from both Republicans and Democrats to bolster the "partisan rancor" context. He added reaction from the White House and two Democratic Senators and recapitulated Rove’s comments – but never got around to asking if Rove was truthful.
In fact, the nation was of one angry mind in the wake of 9/11, favoring a military response to al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Dissent, you remember, arose when the White House used 9/11 to enact a pre-existing scenario for war on Iraq, and it came from conservatives as well as liberals.
Reporters haven’t time to search out the truth of every story, but this was a slam-dunk. Just review the clips from 9/11/01 to early 2002. See what people said and how they voted.
If the AP reporter had done that, he might have written that Rove misstated the case. Better still, he might have phoned Rove, quoted the record and asked, "Why’d you say that?" Even "no comment" would be revealing.
Perhaps the reporter thought the partisan rancor context was cool. Perhaps he enjoyed being "objective" - getting both sides, you know - and just forgot to wonder, "What’s true?" I don’t know. I do know that at McCarthy-plus-55, we still suffer from "objective" journalism.
Note, please, that I’m not accusing anybody of bias. Nor do I think AP is part of a corporate media plot to foist an extreme right wing agenda on America. (Though I know some who do.)
My beef is that we still substitute "balance" for reporting, still bask in the comfort of giving "both sides." Balderdash! There are as many sides to a story as there are participants. (If I were teaching journalism again, we would screen "Rashomon" in the first class.)
But "balanced" or "both-sides" reporting springs from that deeper doctrine, the teaching that humans can be – and should be - objective.
Dictionary, anyone? American Heritage says objectivity is about "material" objects, "external or material reality" and avoiding "emotions or personal prejudices."
Maybe dead people can do that but nobody breathing can suppress his or her emotions or prejudices. Or should. What’s wrong with feelings? How do you understand human behavior if you look only at "external or material reality"? You can’t.
We – journalists and readers both – can be self-aware and use knowledge of our own strengths and weaknesses to get closer to the truth. And by keeping an eye on our own prejudices, we can be fair.
Fairness is the best humans can do. And the reporters and editors I have known over the years, almost all of them human, care about their trade and want terribly to be fair.
So, if that’s true, I hear you ask, why all this "media bias?" Next month, let’s talk about the press as scapegoat.
Alpert is a semi-retired newsman in Albuquerque. Email him at: ArthurAlpert@swcp.com. His column runs the fourth Thursday of the month.
Posted by Arthur Alpert at July 28, 2005 06:01 PM