Our political Quote of the Day comes from President Barack Obama’s former speechwriter Jon Favrea who, writing in The Daily Beast, notes how in America’s current hyperactive media issues and events are framed in stark black and white terms — leaving out the grey, nuanced areas. And it negatively impacts American political discussion. Here’s the key part at the end of his piece:
But in a media age of hypercharged hyperbole, there is little room for gray. Individuals who break the law by leaking classified information have been too easily heralded as whistleblowers, even if there’s not yet proof they’ve exposed any wrongdoing. Obtaining relevant evidence about a criminal leak investigation from reporters has been too quickly equated with prosecuting reporters, even though not one member of the press has been charged with any crime. Secret national-security programs meant to keep us safe have been too casually labeled dangerously Orwellian, even as all three branches of our democratic government—two that are elected by the people and one that is independent and insulated from political pressure—continue to approve of their existence.
Yes, the potential for abuse exists. Authority must be questioned. Those in power must be held accountable to the people they represent, and a free, aggressive press has an indispensable role to play in that mission.
But it does not serve the public good when elected and government officials, be they Democrat or Republican, are constantly presumed guilty until proven innocent. When the American people are told that every action or decision is motivated by politics or power; when every mistake or misstatement is exaggerated into an instance of Nixonian malfeasance; when the line between impassioned advocacy and objective reporting ceases to exist, it does nothing but erode an already-fragile faith in our democratic institutions.
Many in the press have called for a national debate on privacy and security. And in the coming weeks, issues like climate change, immigration, and any number of controversial Supreme Court decisions will be added to the list. But national debates don’t just require a willing public, President, and Congress—they require a willing press that is able to report with a sense of nuance, patience, and perspective.
Here’s hoping we’re all up to the task.
It’s unlikely that will happen. Our news media is now set up to generate rushes of adrenalin with the key word “rushes,” since with Twitter, Facebook and continuously updated websites the stories and analyses are ground out. The “on the other hand” analyses are not as popular. This is an era where people will decide to read or watch only whatever they already agree with before they read or watch it. The age of “broadcasting” has shifted to “narrowcasting,” and America has shifted from a time where the prevailing approach was to question motives to one where many automatically attribute motives. Go back 30 years and you’d be hard pressed to see people talk politics as they do on Fox News or, yes, MSNBC.
To some the nuance of not being totally sure that X, Y, and Z are evil is weakness. Trending isn’t towards nuance, but against it. Trending is not towards bipartisanship, but against it. And, to a large degree, discussing issues in their complexities, bipartisanship and notion of seeking consensus as a positive goal go hand in hand. Which is why we don’t see the linked hands.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.