I Smell a Fish

I smell a fish or a rat or something like that.  Whatever it is, it stinks.  Let me give you a little background for my comment.

Background Number 1: My first reality check with the news media was back in the early 70s when I was a young probation officer.  A high profile case involving a juvenile that had been transferred to adult court was assigned to me.  Somehow, the local newspaper found out that I was going to be this young lad’s probation officer and that I had already done a pre-sentence report on him.  When the Daily Journal contacted me for an interview about the case I was both apprehensive and perhaps a little excited that a journalist actually wanted to talk to me and that my observations on the case would show up in the newspaper.  The interview lasted about an hour as the reporter scribbled page after page of notes.  Satisfied that I had given the facts as they were, the law involved, and the process that would be followed at sentencing, I waited to see the story that I figured would be buried somewhere in the back section of the paper.

I was mortified when I saw the story above the fold on the front page of the paper.  It wasn’t so much the fact that it made front page news that bothered me, but the contents of the article that got my attention.  I remember to this day what I saw.  There were 27 factual errors in the article.  Additionally, the reporter had cherry-picked quotes and mixed them in such a way that what was in print in no way represented what had happened or what I said.

I wish that I could say that this particular experience was an anomaly, but it was not.  All through my policing career that followed, I was misquoted or quoted out of context time and again.  And it wasn’t just newspapers that twisted stories.  I frequently found myself in front of television cameras during my policing and academic careers.  It would not be at all unusual to be interviewed on camera for 15 to 30 minutes on a story and then see a 15 to 30 second spot on the evening news.  The only time I have been able to get a story across without heavy editing and misrepresentation has been on live radio talk shows.

Background Number 2: We finished a presidential campaign and election within the past month.  News report after news report told us that Hillary Clinton had wrapped up the presidential election.  Nobody was going to vote for Donald Trump.

Of course we know what happened.  Debate questions were leaked to the Clinton Camp by a representative of the debate moderator.  Newscasters, the very people we depend upon for information as to what is going on in the world, were openly supportive of Hillary Clinton.  And, like the Clinton campaign, the news media completely ignored Middle America or the so-called Fly Over States.  They relied on the opinions of people living in large cities and those living on the east and west coast.  They did not see the huge groundswell of support for Trump throughout the rest of the country.  They didn’t see it because they didn’t even look for it.  They looked for evidence that supported their agenda.

Background Number 3: This background has its roots in the second background, but it is so significant that it deserves separation from it.  A Quinnipiac University 2016 survey showed that 55% of likely voters believed the media was biased against Donald Trump.  It also found that last year that 10% of Americans felt the presidential race was being accurately covered.  Considering the fact that there are news organizations that tell their reporters to find and report on stories that fit a particular narrative as opposed to finding the stories and taking them to where they naturally lead, it is no wonder that so many Americans felt that the race was not being accurately covered.

A 2014 Gallup poll is reflective of how Americans viewed reporting on the candidates. 

“Americans' faith in each of three major news media platforms -- television news, newspapers, and news on the Internet -- is at or tied with record lows in Gallup's long-standing confidence in institutions trend. This continues a decades-long decline in the share of Americans saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers or TV news, while trust in Internet news remains low since the one prior measure in 1999.

“These results are from a Gallup poll conducted June 5-8.The three major sources of news ranked in the bottom third of 17 different U.S. institutions measured in the poll.

“Confidence in newspapers has declined by more than half since its 1979 peak of 51%, while TV news has seen confidence ebb from its high of 46% in 1993, the first year that Gallup asked this question. Gallup's only previous measure of Internet news was in 1999, when confidence was 21%, little different from today” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx).

The findings by the Gallup organization has not improved as this September 2016 report showed.

“Americans' trust in the media has sunk to a new low, and a bitter presidential race may be to blame, a Gallup survey showed Wednesday.

“The poll asking whether the media report the news "fully, accurately and fairly" found just 32 percent of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust, the lowest level in Gallup polling history and eight percentage points below last year” (https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-confidence-media-hits-fresh-low-gallup-204948188.html).

I am sure that we could cite a myriad of examples of media bias and manipulation of stories to fit the desired narrative of the organization and perhaps even the political movement behind them.  I don’t think I need to do that here.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that political spin is attached to the news.  Anything beyond reporting actual facts – things that happened, is opinion.

Is there a place for opinion in the news?  Of course there is.  The obvious place for opinions is the editorial page or an editorial comment at the end of a newscast.  There are other places in news stories for opinions.  Those would be in the form of explanations by parties involved in news stories as explained by each party.

The Fish: Lately there has been intense media and social media coverage of the construction of the Dakota Pipeline.  Media coverage has exclusively been devoted to the Standing Rock protestors and tribal interests.  Social media in particular have been relentless in posting pictures and memes depicting police and security as brutal enforcers of a corrupt business and government.

As I watch all of this unfold I cannot help but think that in spite of the public distrust of the media, the public continues to buy into the line being fed to them.  Where, I am left to ask, is the other side of the story?  Where are the facts?  Frankly, I don’t know the truth surrounding this controversy or any other controversy going on right now.

Final Thoughts: In my own person experience with media I have come to learn a few things about the “other side’s” story.

First, if you say anything your words will be twisted to either meet the desired narrative or to belittle you.  As I was once quoted in a textbook, “You don’t argue with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.”

Second, your arguments are best saved for courts of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Third, nothing you say will convince opponents of the legitimacy of your actions.

Fourth, you are in the wrong.

We rely on the media to provide us with information as to what is going on around us in the world.  More importantly, we depend upon the media to be our government watchdog.  It is impossible for every person to be physically present at all government activities at all the levels of government.  When media fails in its protected role under the First Amendment to the Constitution then all other protected rights and duties are in jeopardy.  When media promote a political narrative or agenda then they are no better than government controlled outlets we see in totalitarian governments.  We should not expect the media to be especially adversarial with government, political parties, or business and other interests, but we should not expect them to be warm and cozy with them either.  As the Constitution serves as the foundation of our government and the branches of government serve as its cornerstones, the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment in particular, serve as the keystone that holds the walls of democracy in place.  We deserve better.  We should demand better.  We need full, fair, and accurate reporting of facts as they have unfolded with spin and opinion clearly identified on the editorial page and not woven into the reporting.

I smell a fish.