Journalism Versus Creationism

Is the press biased right or left? Or is some of what you read, see and hear in the media, in fact a function of a flaws you may encounter with some (not all) journalists — who are are equal opportunity offenders, particularly if he/she/it becomes more like a novelist filling in a needed quote or fact with a quote or fact that isn’t really a quote or a fact?

Hart Williams has a must read on this issue about an event that happened to him. He writes about how when he was a delegate from Oregon to the Democratic National Convention in 2000 in Los Angeles an Australian reporter asked him about Al Gore and how he could support Gore since the Veep was so “boooooring.” Hart gave his stock answer – which was not how it appeared in the paper.

Later, back from the convention, I happened to follow up on the internet, to see what had become of my sound bite. And there, in Australia’s The Age newspaper, it said, ( I don’t have the exact quote in front of me, it’s long since been archived) Hart Williams, an Oregon delegate agrees: “Sure Gore is boring and wooden,” he said, but he’s all they’ve got.

That’s called reporting after you’ve already decided what to write. She needed a quote to go in an article she’d already framed in her reporter’s brain, and therefore, she didn’t see or care to see what was going on. She was just looking for evidence to fill in the chinks in her mental armor, and I was a handy victim.

No, kids: it ain’t “left wing bias.” The media generally screws EVERYBODY in its superficial need to hit deadlines, and it’s best to already know what you’re going to see in advance, so you aren’t confused by all those “facts” when you sit down to write your piece.

He calls his post “Creationism v. Journalism.” Read it in its entirety.

Unless you’ve been in the news biz, it’s hard to explain to today’s political partisans all fired up how the media actually works.

People on the left and right will denounce papers and broadcasters when they disagree with them then quote them and throw out material that supports them later when it suits their side (it’s a credible accurate source when it supports their narrative, biases and battles). MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has been called a tool of the right and the tool of the left. Basically, some people hate any outlet that doesn’t report what it wants to see reported or is not critical of the “other side” and praises or defends its sports political team. Today, many people will not listen to programs, read a paper or visit a website unless they agree with it before they listen, read or visit it (and if they listen, read or visit it and something fits how they see things, it is brilliant and unbiased).

But as a former fulltime journalist who moved into another field after an extensive career here and overseas, I have run into the same situation that Hart notes here.

In local interviews with me, quotes that were printed were often totally created and didn’t match what I told the reporter or how I talk (or write). (When I was a reporter I developed my own form of shorthand and also often used a tape record and had a mania about getting qutoes right and even called back sources to re-check if I had a doubt).

When I first left newspapers into my present fulltime “gig,” a major television network did a news story pegged to what I did and the field reporter asked for the room where did one opening shot to be dimly in a report that began: “I”m dimly lit room in a border town…” It was dim because HE ASKED FOR IT to be dim.

The worst story is when I was a freelance in New Delhi, India from 1973-1975, as the accredited stringer for the Chicago Daily News, but also a contributor to the Christian Science Monitor, Aftenposten, Sydney Morning Herald, Miami Herald Argus South African Newspapers, and other publications.

Through a local contact, a major network asked me if I wanted to be their radio news stringer. This was my big chance to get my foot in the door into broadcasting.

I wrote back I’d love to but I really wanted to caution them about stereotypical stories from India such as about people starving in the streets or cows eating up the food. I got back a letter saying they wanted me to be their stringer and that my letter actually touched a feature they wanted:

My first assignment for their radio broadcast was to get “some sounds of cows mooing,” and to talk to officials about the impact of cows on the food situation in India. The producer told me to get the sound effects and raw interviews, send it to the network’s headquarters and they would do the editing and actual scripting and reporter narration there and I’d get $50 for the short piece.

I never sent it in. Fortunately or unfortunately, I couldn’t operate that way due to my own training and ethics. I could not do a quintessential pre-conceived, pre-written and stereotypical piece of journalism. So I passed on the stringer job and never answered them — but gave the letter to an American political scientist who specialized in India who often complained about journalistic stereotypes and pre-conceived reporting and had told me, “I’ll give you my HOUSE for that letter!!” (I just gave it to him, so he kept his house:)

In these two experiences with broadcast, the approach was to have the person in the field gather raw material, then send it back to the main office where it was written and edited to make a nice piece that a flowed and had a beginning middle and an end. And, in both cases, the emphasis was not on accuracy. In several experiences with print media, I was shocked as a former reporter to see how words were put in my mouth or news stories about me riddled with mistakes (even my name).

Meanwhile, there are times when you can TELL a news outlet just by listening to it.

To wit:

Yesterday I was in a rush and headed out the door and quickly turned on the TV and put it onto what I thought was CNN. I was in another part of the room when the anchor interviewed a talking head on the upcoming NY terrorist trials. I only heard the show. The reporter asked questions that sometimes sounded like they were coming from a political viewpoint. The interviewer gave extensive replies highly critical of the administration but there was no follow up by the reporter. It seemed an interview with a political message, one where the content was pre-ordained. I said out loud: “This MUST be Fox.” I went and checked. Yep.

In my car, I was in a rush again and I quickly turned on satellite radio to one of the talk stations without looking. It was live extensive coverage of the Senate debate on health care reform. “It MUST be CSPAN..” Yep.

Similarly, you can tell it’s MSNBC if you get Keith or Rachael.

But Sean, Rush, Keith, Rachel — we know they have specific political axes to grind. Most people can deal with that.

It’s the invention of quotes, gross inaccuracies and stereotypical reporting which that people sometimes have problems dealing with — and in mega polarized 21st century America, what better way to try and explain it then claim it was part of a liberal or conservative plot or bias?

Sometimes it’s just a case of a print or broadcast reporter submitting a pre-conceived report that contains material he or she could not get with their reporting.

So they defraud their editors and their readers.

And their craft.