Tuesday, July 12, 2005
When news doesn't suit your politics
Charles M. Madigan
July 12, 2005
My plan was to trot out all the things I love about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as a way of defending it from its internal and external enemies, who seem so intent on tinkering with the mission, as politicians often will when they become full of ... hmmm, what would be the juiciest word here? ... themselves.
I completed a whole column. It was gentle and thoughtful but a little gooey even for me, a man who tears up like a teenage girl at movies and gets misty when brass bands play John Philip Sousa marches on the 4th of July.
I killed it.
Here is what I really think.
The problem conservative critics have with modern news media is the same problem conservative critics have always had with news media.
It's not just that they despise liberals. They do. But I think the whole liberal thing is a ruse.
What they really dislike is journalism.
Pick your critic.
What you generally find is either a politician unhappy about the way reality is being described or a dollar-grabbing bloviator who wants to rant and shout and inflame a collection of people who are quite eager to be inflamed because they, too, don't like journalism.
In journalism, we certainly do need our critics, because we make mistakes. But not all the time, not intentionally and not because of any hidden bias. Sometimes we are sloppy. Sometimes we play host to dishonest practitioners who fabricate, steal or lie.
Sometimes we are dumb as pumpkins.
But most of the time, it's the journalism these people really hate.
Take the war in Iraq, for example.
It is hard in the news biz not to notice the shifting collections of rationales for this war. It was weapons of mass destruction at first, then it was making Iraq the centerpiece in the push for democracy and now it's because, surprise, the place is crawling with terrorists.
Torture is another one of those things we don't like to hear about. How dare the media suggest the U.S. is involved in torture, or sending war prisoners to places where there are few scruples about collecting intelligence, or humiliating prisoners.
Truth is no defense. It's viewed as unpatriotic. Maybe as liberal.
But it's not. It's just journalism.
In a democracy based on the thought that an informed electorate will make wise decisions, someone has to point out all of these unpleasant things, just so you know what your government is up to.
I know, it's not happy to hear it. It's not patriotic either.
It is just truth building up over time and playing out in context. If you really long for flag-waving news, go to a parade. But that is not what journalism is about.
Truth may well be the first casualty of war in some quarters, but that doesn't give reporters a deferment from searching for it. Some people just hate that. Any hint of criticism is viewed as treason.
For a lot of media critics on the right, this is big business.
What they are up to is building either constituency or audience share, and bashing the news media is a good way to do that. Remember Vice President Spiro "Spiffy" Agnew and the nattering nabobs of negativism?
You have to give that felonious old Maryland hack credit for knowing what he was doing.
People don't like us much, but then, they never really have. Hence, there's not much risk in b-slapping reporters. It's a good business model.
Here is how it goes in modern media:
"Those of you who dislike journalism, come to me! I, too, dislike journalism and I'm going to tell you, endlessly, exactly how much. Then, once you have gathered, I am going to sell you diet supplements and lots of other things because I am in show business and the bigger and more loyal my audience, the better."
Don't be misled. If you get all your news from these people, surprise, it's not news. It is just endless clouds of gas. The same is true of "liberal" talk radio, a relatively recent arrival. It's not news.
Even worse on the left, it's derivative gas, an imitation of what is happening in talk radio on the right, except on the right, it works because the audience is in lockstep with the message and the people on the right are real pros.
If you want to hear masterful timing at work, listen to Rush Limbaugh. The man is a genius.
Bloggers love bashing news, too, to the point that it is becoming a career for some of them. It seems a little parasitic to me, waiting around for news to criticize. It gives them something to do, I suspect.
So, there you have it.
What the haters hate the most is journalism. They would live in a world where everything is wonderful, where the government does only good things, where no one keeps a casualty count, and where all the stories are as positive as a Reader's Digest report on what's so darned good about America.
What a wonderful, Orwellian place that would be.
----------
Charles M. Madigan is the editor of Perspective and writes The Rambling Gleaner at chicagotribune.com/gleaner. E-mail: cmadigan@tribune.com
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
July 12, 2005
My plan was to trot out all the things I love about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as a way of defending it from its internal and external enemies, who seem so intent on tinkering with the mission, as politicians often will when they become full of ... hmmm, what would be the juiciest word here? ... themselves.
I completed a whole column. It was gentle and thoughtful but a little gooey even for me, a man who tears up like a teenage girl at movies and gets misty when brass bands play John Philip Sousa marches on the 4th of July.
I killed it.
Here is what I really think.
The problem conservative critics have with modern news media is the same problem conservative critics have always had with news media.
It's not just that they despise liberals. They do. But I think the whole liberal thing is a ruse.
What they really dislike is journalism.
Pick your critic.
What you generally find is either a politician unhappy about the way reality is being described or a dollar-grabbing bloviator who wants to rant and shout and inflame a collection of people who are quite eager to be inflamed because they, too, don't like journalism.
In journalism, we certainly do need our critics, because we make mistakes. But not all the time, not intentionally and not because of any hidden bias. Sometimes we are sloppy. Sometimes we play host to dishonest practitioners who fabricate, steal or lie.
Sometimes we are dumb as pumpkins.
But most of the time, it's the journalism these people really hate.
Take the war in Iraq, for example.
It is hard in the news biz not to notice the shifting collections of rationales for this war. It was weapons of mass destruction at first, then it was making Iraq the centerpiece in the push for democracy and now it's because, surprise, the place is crawling with terrorists.
Torture is another one of those things we don't like to hear about. How dare the media suggest the U.S. is involved in torture, or sending war prisoners to places where there are few scruples about collecting intelligence, or humiliating prisoners.
Truth is no defense. It's viewed as unpatriotic. Maybe as liberal.
But it's not. It's just journalism.
In a democracy based on the thought that an informed electorate will make wise decisions, someone has to point out all of these unpleasant things, just so you know what your government is up to.
I know, it's not happy to hear it. It's not patriotic either.
It is just truth building up over time and playing out in context. If you really long for flag-waving news, go to a parade. But that is not what journalism is about.
Truth may well be the first casualty of war in some quarters, but that doesn't give reporters a deferment from searching for it. Some people just hate that. Any hint of criticism is viewed as treason.
For a lot of media critics on the right, this is big business.
What they are up to is building either constituency or audience share, and bashing the news media is a good way to do that. Remember Vice President Spiro "Spiffy" Agnew and the nattering nabobs of negativism?
You have to give that felonious old Maryland hack credit for knowing what he was doing.
People don't like us much, but then, they never really have. Hence, there's not much risk in b-slapping reporters. It's a good business model.
Here is how it goes in modern media:
"Those of you who dislike journalism, come to me! I, too, dislike journalism and I'm going to tell you, endlessly, exactly how much. Then, once you have gathered, I am going to sell you diet supplements and lots of other things because I am in show business and the bigger and more loyal my audience, the better."
Don't be misled. If you get all your news from these people, surprise, it's not news. It is just endless clouds of gas. The same is true of "liberal" talk radio, a relatively recent arrival. It's not news.
Even worse on the left, it's derivative gas, an imitation of what is happening in talk radio on the right, except on the right, it works because the audience is in lockstep with the message and the people on the right are real pros.
If you want to hear masterful timing at work, listen to Rush Limbaugh. The man is a genius.
Bloggers love bashing news, too, to the point that it is becoming a career for some of them. It seems a little parasitic to me, waiting around for news to criticize. It gives them something to do, I suspect.
So, there you have it.
What the haters hate the most is journalism. They would live in a world where everything is wonderful, where the government does only good things, where no one keeps a casualty count, and where all the stories are as positive as a Reader's Digest report on what's so darned good about America.
What a wonderful, Orwellian place that would be.
----------
Charles M. Madigan is the editor of Perspective and writes The Rambling Gleaner at chicagotribune.com/gleaner. E-mail: cmadigan@tribune.com
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
