The witch-hunt against rogue journalists conceals deeper
issues of instant gratification and marketing. Besides, it is directed at the wrong type.
There is something in the irony of how a non-journalist running a Web site
out of an apartment, can run a scoop that the rest of the media are forced to follow,
while the world's most respected news network runs an explosive story that it is forced to
retract. But it's not Matt Drudge's Internet publication (The Drudge Report, which first
gave us ‘Monicagate’) that has forced all branches of the media, save radio, to
wear a scarlet letter ('A' for apologetic). The witch-hunt involves journalists at more
respected outfits --The Boston Globe, The Cincinnati Inquirer, The New Republic, TIME
magazine, George, and Rolling Stone. The central thesis of CNN’s flawed story, that
the US military used a chemical weapon named Sarin to kill its own defectors during the
Vietnam war, was explosive (something the marketing people like), but unsustainable
(something the lawyers hate). And that's precisely what's causing the huge dilemma: the
difficulty of balancing ratings with responsibility, news with the pull of e-commerce. If
this were an isolated incident, it would have been swept under the carpet. But, following
closely on the heels of four fairly high-profile media 'blunders', they were more
embarrassing than offensive: the institution more known for picking the warts and wrinkles
of others is finding the searchlight turned on itself.
How did this come to pass? Why are media critics chuckling that
responsible journalism is an oxymoron? Before we pin the blame on Pulitzer greed or the
Internet, let’s face it. Two factors are at work here: the pull of instant
gratification, and the force of marketing. In the rush toward electronic forms of
journalism, the way information is gathered, stitched together and consumed has shifted
slowly but radically. As NBC’s Ted Koppell rightfully dubbed it, TV journalism is
'McThought' –the journalistic equivalent of fast food! The breathless pace of
information leaves very little time for contemplating its center of gravity, ordering its
sequence and separating the chaff from the grain. The media once had a word for that
process: editing. But in collapsing the time lag between the act of gathering and the act
of publishing, truth and the facts are the first casualties. Koppell observes that a
journalist in Vietnam had to transport film to Saigon to catch the daily flight that took
it to Hongkong or Bangkok, and then onward to New York. From there it had to be couriered
to a lab, and then after processing, required editing before it got aired. Today, with a
satellite dish roughly the size of a dinner plate, and a battery-powered mobile phone
roughly the size of a zucchini, it's easy to leave the editor out of the loop. Like
streaming video from a Web page, the instant gratification of the newsfeed becomes more
important than the content. At least until all hell breaks loose.
Why shoot the messenger?
Hell did break loose this summer even before CNN and TIME were forced to publicly
apologize for the blunder. Print took the first hit, when an associate editor of the New
Republic magazine, Stephen Glass admitted to inventing characters he featured in some 24
articles he had published in the magazine. Like a bush fire, Glass' work sparked off
credibility issues in two other magazines he had written for, Rolling Stone, and the
political magazine George. Suddenly the concept of accuracy and truth has begun to hang
like a huge question mark over the industry, and everyone wants to kill the messenger.
But can we heal the patient by amputating every diseased limb? Journalists
are the galley slaves who may propel the ship, but do not chart its course. They are hired
to deliver a product – fast – but it is up to their editors to decide if the
product is fit to be taken to market. We unofficially appoint anchors, columnists and
reporters as filters to our world knowing fully well that they may be biased, bigoted and
opinionated –just like we are. Peter Arnett and Peter Jennings, who have bosses, too,
are expected to be 'disinterested' in the truth. For that matter, that's why there are
editors, aren't there?
It's not so easy as that, as the nerve gas saga reminds us. Though the
flawed story was found to be highly biased, none of the information was fabricated per
se. How did it get past the rather stringent news gathering and editing process,
considering most of these sensitive reports are not the creation of one person? CNN which
was using the exclusive to launch its CNN-TIME 'NewsStand' series, sidesteps the marketing
issue, and says it still values "accuracy, fairness and responsibility". You
would have expected the story to be retracted for inaccuracy, not bias. The story was
withdrawn after many (including CNN’s own military expert who resigned) disputed the
facts and the networks’ own investigation revealed that the nerve gas story was not
fair.
Not fair? I’ll tell you what else is not fair. The extensive report
by a panel of lawyers noted that they found the journalists actually believed every word
they wrote into the script. However, the media critics fail to make a distinction between
this ‘lie’ and that of the Boston Globe reporter who admitted having invented
people and manufacturing quotes in four columns this year. And what of the retracted story
by the Cincinnati Inquirer? It may have been damage control for the Gannett group, but the
Inquirer’s dubious apology to the Chiquita Banana Company, does journalism a
disservice. In refusing to explain whether it was not standing by the facts of the story
or apologizing for the method of obtaining them –the infamous stolen voice
mail—shifts the blame too conveniently on the writer. It’s good PR that appears
to be driven by market forces rather than journalistic standards. But the 'media lie' gets
more complicated than that. Reporters don’t only lie because they think they won't be
found out, but because they think that their bosses indulge in the practice of
‘embellishment’ themselves. Adding value to the product has a legitimate parent:
it’s called marketing. Between 'zippergate', –the Clinton saga that's been
massaged to death– and TIME magazine caught darkening the 1994 cover picture of OJ
Simpson, it’s evident that there are others on the organizational chart responsible
for massaging the big stories. Yet it's always the journalist who takes the bullet. Every
now and then a reporter will blow it and somebody will get awarded his/her pound of flesh.
But will it force journalist to clean up their act? Do convenience stores stop selling
cigarettes just because smoking gradually kills off its customer base? Let’s get more
realistic.
We need to tackle this on a deeper level if we are to reinstall
accountability as our operating system. In a recent survey, 48.3% of respondents said they
have never trusted the media. Consumed? Yes. Believed? Well, we'll have to work on that.
Interestingly, the Matt Drudges of this world care less about such appalling approval
ratings and more about hit reports. It's this kind of the-end-justifies-the-means attitude
that got Michael Gallagher of the Cincinnati Inquirer fired. He may have had a hot story
about Chiquita’s allegedly unscrupulous business practice in Central America, but
allowed the process of information gathering to taint his product. Add to that the
instant gratification of the Internet –the Big Mac of ‘McThought’– that
has been taunting traditional media and it's easy to see why we need to come up with a
better model or else...
Or else, there are people Pete du Point, editor of a public policy cyber
magazine called intellectualcapital.com who welcome the Internet because of its capacity
to 'blow holes in all traditional media'. Du Pont believes that we have arrived at an age
where we don't need a filter - the Dan Rathers or the Ted Koppells of this world– to
define the limits of how news is reported. The new media is seductive for exactly the same
reasons: the instantaneous, un-interfered stream of information – or rot –
between publishers and their audience. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and The
National Inquirer, who remind us that there are more things to be embarrassed about than a
journalist who slips something past his/her editor, must surely be cheering at this recent
media crisis for one reason.
No one’s inspecting what’s brewing in their cauldron anymore. |
