 |
| Marty Baron, in the Washington Post newsroom, 2013 (photo by Steven Voss/Redux) |
OK, I am a former media person -- or still am, if certain blog pieces qualify for that.
So honestly, I can't agree with Mr. Trump when he rails about the "dishonest, lying media."
In my career, I never had anyone accuse me of that -- at least to my face. Had some people express their displeasure to me, directly or on the phone or in a letter or note, but it was rarely ugly. There was one shouting match I remember (no details necessary), and there was one well-known man who yelled at me (I've written about it).
Look, I made some mistakes in judgement and had my share of fact errors. But if I had heard someone call me "dishonest" or "lying," I don't think I would have been so cool.
Above all, my goal was to be as fair as I could.
I was not unbiased when it was a school or team from my newspaper's coverage area playing a team from another area; you are trying to present the story from your area's viewpoint.
I knew I was doing OK in the "fairness" department when in the early 1970s, a couple of people associated with Woodlawn High School in Shreveport -- my alma mater -- told me, based on what they'd read, how I "hated Woodlawn." True story.
---
Here is the note I posted earlier ...
I have had several friends tell me they thought that the media played a huge role in Mr. Trump's rise to President-elect, that they were not tough enough on him early on, that he was given too much "free" time by the media, or, if they were Trump supporters, he was exactly correct in his portrayal of the "crooked" or "rigged" media.
You have to judge that for yourself.
My opinion is -- whether you supported him or not -- Mr. Trump used the media brilliantly. He knew from the start that they could not afford to not cover him. So if he said or did something outrageous, it was going to play.
I know a lot of media people -- some who are liberal-leaning; I know a lot that are conservative-leaning. I have friends both ways.
(We regularly watch PBS NewsHour, Face The Nation and Meet The Press, and I think the balance between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints on those shows is very fair.)
But from years in newspapers, the media people I know (or knew) were very conscientious and tried to be objective, and they worked hard. And they were simply doing their jobs, with the intent of being fair.
Sure there are some "self-promoters" in the business, but I would say those people are in the great minority.
We all take stances that might not be popular, and we receive criticism. That's part of the job. Not many people like to be criticized, but you deal with it best you can.
Here is the link to the speech by Baron, who was editor of the Boston Globe featured in the movie Spotlight when its investigative team uncovered the Catholic Church's coverup of children being sexually abused by priests.
Read this speech. Maybe it will give you a different view of the media's role. Maybe not.
It is, as Coach Adams used to say, "all in the way you hold your mouth."
---
OK, suppose I concede that most of the "mainstream media" -- say The New York Times and Washington Post columnists and reporters, and the major, traditional television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) -- are left-leaning.
I would say that's because those people are smarter, more studied than the rest of us. Maybe they can figure this out better. So there.
Think about this, though: Mr. Trump received, what, a total of four newspaper endorsements across the country and the TV media mostly was critical of him. And he won. So much for media influence making a difference.
The public decided the election. The public decided they wanted change from eight years of the Obama administration, and they didn't want Hillary.
Change is, my opinion, the major reason Mr. Trump was elected. The desire for change is why JFK was elected in 1960, and Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, G.W. Bush in 2000, Obama in 2008.
Only one of those Presidents had a consistent "war" with the media. Care to guess? He had to resign because the media investigated and found he really was a crook.
---
Also, I am adding a link to another Washington Post piece regarding the media and Mr. Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/28/trump-has-already-defeated-the-news-media-and-its-unclear-what-we-can-do-about-it/?utm_term=.1e09c6c0ace6
It is an analysis of the Trump movement in total and his use of the media in particular. Fair warning: If you are a Trump supporter, you probably won't like it.
It is not right when -- with Mr. Trump's anti-media rhetoric stirring up people -- reporters on his campaign, trying to do their jobs, are threatened by crowds. Read another story on that this morning.
Don't believe everything The Man tells you.
I post these articles, not as sour grapes -- the election is done; Mr. Trump won it, and no recount or Electoral College flip-flop should change that. I post them because I think they're interesting reads.
But, please, don't think that all or most people are "dishonest" and/or "liars." That's not right. That is a dishonest appraisal.
OK, suppose I concede that most of the "mainstream media" -- say The New York Times and Washington Post columnists and reporters, and the major, traditional television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) -- are left-leaning.
I would say that's because those people are smarter, more studied than the rest of us. Maybe they can figure this out better. So there.
Think about this, though: Mr. Trump received, what, a total of four newspaper endorsements across the country and the TV media mostly was critical of him. And he won. So much for media influence making a difference.
The public decided the election. The public decided they wanted change from eight years of the Obama administration, and they didn't want Hillary.
Change is, my opinion, the major reason Mr. Trump was elected. The desire for change is why JFK was elected in 1960, and Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, G.W. Bush in 2000, Obama in 2008.
Only one of those Presidents had a consistent "war" with the media. Care to guess? He had to resign because the media investigated and found he really was a crook.
---
Also, I am adding a link to another Washington Post piece regarding the media and Mr. Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/28/trump-has-already-defeated-the-news-media-and-its-unclear-what-we-can-do-about-it/?utm_term=.1e09c6c0ace6
It is an analysis of the Trump movement in total and his use of the media in particular. Fair warning: If you are a Trump supporter, you probably won't like it.
It is not right when -- with Mr. Trump's anti-media rhetoric stirring up people -- reporters on his campaign, trying to do their jobs, are threatened by crowds. Read another story on that this morning.
Don't believe everything The Man tells you.
I post these articles, not as sour grapes -- the election is done; Mr. Trump won it, and no recount or Electoral College flip-flop should change that. I post them because I think they're interesting reads.
But, please, don't think that all or most people are "dishonest" and/or "liars." That's not right. That is a dishonest appraisal.
From Ted Bauer: Here's one disgraceful thing that I think is out there and not discussed enough ... the tax returns. He was the only major-party candidate in U.S. history not to release. The media basically rolled over for him. I think selfishly it's that they knew the bigger train wreck he was and the more he was being an ass, their ratings and subscriptions would be higher. The New York Times made like $358M in that quarter. It was their best quarter in seven years, I think. You gotta think that's largely about people wanting to see Trump as a train wreck, and the taxes played into that.
ReplyDeleteThen you look at debate No. 1 -- Lester Holt basically wasn't there. It was like a pro wrestling match where the ref got knocked out.
I agree. You know, I think it's so interesting that some feel "the media" (or "lamestream media" as it's known in some circles) basically gave him a pass, and others feel that he was covered unfairly. The perception says more about the one doing the perceiving, I believe. My mama was a very smart lady. She used to say, "When you say that everyone but you is wrong, it's time to examine your own position." There are certainly rare instances when an iconoclast is so attuned to the currents and tides of events that they are able to be a lone voice of reason, but those instances are scarcer than hens' teeth.
DeleteThat said, there are reasons for the polarity we find in "the media" now, and chief among those is the almighty dollar. We have a situation in the United States now when most media outlets are owned and controlled by only six major conglomerates ... Comcast, NewsCorp(se), Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. Those six own well over 90% of all the media in this country. Remember when we used to make fun of the poor Russians who only had Tass and Pravda? I do, and it looks like we think that was just a peachy model. Small wonder so many peripheral "news" sources with NO filters have cropped up.
But back to those dollars. For the sake of brevity, let's just say that we have one magnet with a negative charge and four with a positive charge lined up on either side of a circle. If you dump iron filings into the center of that circle, roughly half will be attracted to the negatively charged magnet, while the other half will be attracted pretty evenly to the three others. So if those iron filings are dollars, you can see the result. That phenomenon has led to the left/right split in our "news" coverage. People gravitate toward the sources that mirror what they WANT to hear.
So when someone complains about "the media" no longer providing a balanced look at the news, the first question is what they consider "balanced". Do they just mean, "It doesn't reflect MY views?" Often ... far TOO often ... that's precisely what they mean.
Or to go to a sports analogy, if equitable coverage is the 50 yard line, and if "liberal" extends from there to the home goal post and "conservative" extends to the "visitor" goal post, judging a media outlet's position would be simple. But if, over time, that "visitor" goal post kept being moved further and further from what was originally mid-field, pretty soon that 50-yard-line starts to look "liberal". And that's where we are now.
Sorry to ramble, but this is an issue that really hits home with me. I'm still grieving the loss of 'Washington Week's' Gwen Ifill. There are some good, balanced news programs out there. Whether you think they're too "liberal" or too "conservative" probably says more about you than about them.
From Sylvia Pesek: I agree. You know, I think it's so interesting that some feel "the media" (or "lamestream media" as it's known in some circles) basically gave him a pass, and others feel that he was covered unfairly. The perception says more about the one doing the perceiving, I believe. My mama was a very smart lady. She used to say, "When you say that everyone but you is wrong, it's time to examine your own position." There are certainly rare instances when an iconoclast is so attuned to the currents and tides of events that they are able to be a lone voice of reason, but those instances are scarcer than hens' teeth.
DeleteFrom Jeff Rude: Underline this sentence and put it in ALL CAPS and put it on the top of a neon marquee: But from years in newspapers, the media people I know (or knew) were very conscientious and tried to be objective, and they worked hard. And they were simply doing their jobs, with the intent of being fair.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way and have told people this whenever they start bashing "the media" in front of me.
Then I’d get the "you are just trying to sell newspapers (or magazines)." I never thought that for any second in my 40-plus years in the business.
To be honest, I don’t even know who the hell "the media" is.
From Tom Arceneaux: I would not call any of those news shows conservative or even balanced. All are liberal leaning.
ReplyDeleteI have not found any "fair and balanced" news show. I hate FOX, and the others I find quite unbalanced to the left.
I try to read, note READ, from a variety of sources to sift through facts and opinions to keep myself informed.
Trump expected the media to cover his outrageousness and he guessed correctly. Also, I think the Republican hierarchy wanted the demographics of Sen. Rubio, but he proved himself not quite ready for prime time. Had the hierarchy gotten behind, say, Kasich (my candidate), he could have gotten the nomination.
That said, I’m not sure John Kasich would have been the bulldog on Hillary Clinton to cause the turnout to vote against her.
From Ken Sins: Excellent address by Baron. Continue doing your jobs. Point out the lies, the backtracking, the inconsistencies, the conflicts of interest, the connections to white supremacy and fascism. Tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe TV news industry played a major role in Trump's ascendency. At first, CNN considered Trump to be a joke, a sideshow. Many viewers watched for the comedy effect, but they still watched. He soon became ratings gold, so he became a constant on CNN. Soon, his lies, racism, misogyny became mainstream and enough suckers bought the act and the Crooked Hillary myth that he managed to carry enough swing states to become leader of the free world. Six months ago, no Hollywood producer would have bought this script. Too outlandish.
You used admirable restraint, but the message was clear: despite Trump's nonsense, most reporters for legit news organizations are honest, hard-working folks.
The problem during the campaign was the TV news industry's desire for a "horse race," so Trump's mountain of misdeeds was somehow cancelled out by Clinton's "sin" of using the wrong email server. And enough voters bought it.
Now it's our reality.
I despair for our once great nation.
From Tommy Youngblood: I couldn't agree more as to the role of the press and getting the truth out should be the First Amendment. But the concern I had in the last election was the unbalanced reporting that occurred daily. We had two deeply flawed candidates and it seemed to me that one was given a pass (and a preliminary glimpse at the questions) and one was raked over the coals. My view only.
ReplyDeleteFrom Ross Montelbano: I almost always agree with you, but I usually add something. I can't add a thing. Right on target. You have such credibility and I appreciate your staying involved.
ReplyDeleteFrom John Dittrich: The "mainstream" media is under siege. A false narrative that traditional news outlets are dishonest and untrustworthy has been perpetuated by the extreme right. These outlets absolutely MUST come up with a way to assert that they are, indeed, honest and objective.
ReplyDeleteI listen to NPR all day, every day. I feel that NPR and PBS are more fair and balanced than any other outlet.
Like you, I watch the Sunday morning political talk shows religiously (no church-related wisecrack intended). Although I continue to record and watch "Meet The Press," it seems to me that Chuck Todd is not very objective. He takes a very obvious hostile approach to the conservatives, particularly to anyone affiliated with Mr. Trump. While I do not like President-elect Trump and consider myself left-leaning, I do feel that Todd gives credence to those in the right who accuse the media of being too liberal. He is so obviously argumentative toward certain guests that it actually makes me uncomfortable. This approach is exactly what damages the credibility of the mainstream media.
I read Mr. Baron's speech and agree with just about every word of it. I just think he and his peers need to find a way to assert their principles and defy those who want to portray so many of the fine and highly principled journalists as untrustworthy or dishonest. That is just a shame.
From Ralph Kraft: If not considered and discarded, suggest you expand your watch list to include Charlie Rose. Interesting guests, generally, wide-ranging topics and multiple viewpoints. Rose does an excellent job and seldom steps on himself during the interviews.
ReplyDeleteWe do watch Charlie Rose regularly, record it every night (midnight showing here), and we appreciate how broad his knowledge is.
DeleteFrom Larry Lepinski: I tend to side with Trump on this. Many of the so-called "journalists" are nothing more than tools for a liberal addenda.
ReplyDeleteFrom Joe Harris: The unbiased truth is what we expect. Remember Edward R. Murrow -- This I Believe. Need many more like this man. It might help remove much of the disrespect and divisiveness in our great nation.
ReplyDeleteFrom Leo Van Thyn: All the news media networks tried extremely hard to be fair. CNN had more commentators who favoured Clinton but always a couple of Trump supporters -– Jeffrey Lord and a young blonde woman whose name escapes me. The only exception, I find, is FOX. I’m not sure they’re even news media anymore. Just shills for Trump. I simply can’t stand that smarmy Hannity and have little patience for O’Reilly and Beck.
ReplyDeleteFrom Sylvia Pesek: Just a reminder, Hillary actually won the popular vote by over 2.5 million votes!
ReplyDeleteSo when you write that, "The public decided the election. The public decided they wanted change from eight years of the Obama administration, and they didn't want Hillary," it would be more accurate to say that, "While over 2 1/2 million American voters preferred Hillary over Donald, a slim majority in a scant handful of states tipped the advantage to him."
From Joe Harris: I'm not a Trump supporter, but I certainly do not believe that Hillary has any right to be President. If this country has a chance to survive as a world power, not electing her was a good thing. The left agenda, under Obama and supported by Hillary, has left our country in the deepest trouble ever. Division within was what Khrushchev meant when he said they would destroy us without firing a shot.
ReplyDeleteFrom Tommy Canterbury: There had to be a change. He [Trump] did what he had to do well. I didn't always agree, but he did what people believe, right or wrong. My thought: The press is way too liberal. The majority of us got sick of it. I damn sure did. Not sports-wise; it has nothing to do with sports from my side.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this as always.