Journolist scandal eclipses the real problem: News bias
Journolist scandal eclipses the real problem: News bias
By Patrick Maines
The "Journolist" kerfuffle — surely you've heard of it by now — says more about the state of media criticism than it does about the state of journalism. Worse, it provokes a microscopic narrative about the thoughts and motives of opinion writers that only diverts attention from the macroscopic subject — the public's perception of bias among mainstream news reporters.
In the event that you've been vacationing abroad, or have better things to do than monitor pundits' opinions of themselves, Journolist is a now-defunct listserv once made up of some 400 liberal commentators, activists, academics and "think tank" ideologues. It was assembled (and then disassembled) by The Washington Post's Ezra Klein.
Himself a liberal ideologue, Klein was obliged to close his listserv when some of its contributors' e-mails were leaked. Most notable were those of David Weigel, who resigned his position as a blogger for the Post when it was revealed that he had said on the listserv disparaging things about prominent conservatives. Most of the conservative targets have since responded with expressions of outrage, some of it over the top. The best of the folderol, though, has been issued from the Journolisters themselves.
Writing a blog meant to put some distance between himself and other members of the listserv, Time magazine's Joe Klein says that he was one of the more moderate members of the group and " had to defend (himself) against onslaughts from (his) left"; that he "politely ignored" the occasional suggestions on the listserv of "joint action."
Pedaling even faster, Ezra Klein, Journolist's paterfamilias, dismisses any idea that the listserv was anything other than "an insulated space where the lure of a smart, ongoing conversation would encourage journalists, policy experts, and assorted other observers to share their insights with one another." And why, then, did he close it down? Well, "not because Journolist was a bad idea, or anyone on it did anything wrong," but because its archives were being used against it, and "people's careers are now at stake" (emphasis added).
Beside the point
Lost amid the hyperbolic accusations and overwrought defenses — hiding in plain sight, as it were — is the reality of Journolist's relative insignificance and harmlessness. Far from being a clandestine forum of mainstream reporters, gathered together to bend an unsuspecting public to their political will, Journolist was a group largely comprised of non-journalists and opinion writers — most but not all employed by small and politically marginal publications such as The Nation, The New Republic and Salon.
Recognizing the difference between reporters and opinion writers, and between the mainstream media and small political publications, is important for two reasons: Like most opinion writers, the Journolisters' appeal and influence extend not one millimeter beyond those who agree with them; by focusing on the real or alleged shortcomings of such people, we ignore the far more important problem of the perception of bias being practiced by mainstream journalists. It is this perception, among other media failures, that has continued to erode the public's trust in this nation's Fourth Estate. The continual neglect has also opened the door — kicked it open, really — for conservative media in all forms.
The polls over the past decade lay out the problem very clearly. In 2008, for instance, the Pew Research Center found, by 70% to 9%, that the public thought journalists wanted to see Barack Obama, rather than John McCain, win the presidential election. More recently, Rasmussen Reports published a poll in April with the finding that 55% of U.S. voters think news media bias is a bigger problem than large campaign contributions.
Worse still for the media themselves, the perception of bias is felt most acutely by conservatives who, according to a recent Gallup poll, are both the largest and fastest growing ideological group in the country. In business terms, it's a growing market that the legacy media have failed to effectively engage.
Bias? What bias?
Given these kinds of numbers, and the mainstream media's tenuous hold on readers and viewers, one might expect that editors and reporters are doing everything they can to change this perception. If that is in fact happening, however, it's not much in evidence. For the most part, the subject of media bias and what to do about it is treated, if at all, rather like a Zen koan — one of life's insoluble problems.
Thus do we hear more these days about why it's impossible for journalists to be completely objective, or why objectivity itself is a passé concept, than we do about objectivity as journalism's sine qua non. This has the effect, if not the intention, of leaving undisturbed the kind of journalism that is resented by people who do not share the political slant that they perceive in the news.
Whether from a commitment to the public or to self-preservation, the mainstream news media need to find a way to deal with the perception of a liberal bias. One obvious way to do that would be to hire more people who consider themselves conservatives. Another that wouldn't require an ideological litmus test would be to hire editors who oblige the most exacting kind of standards of objectivity from all of their reporters, conservatives and liberals alike.
There is another just as pressing reason why the mainstream media need to be perceived as practicing objective journalism, and it has nothing to do with drawing in the robust, if now-distant, conservative audience. Going forward, the news media are going to have to find ways to distinguish themselves from news aggregators and bloggers. One way to do this is by providing in-depth and objective coverage of domestic and foreign affairs. ("Objective" being the key word.) Today's bloggers and aggregators have neither the talent — in most cases — nor the resources to do so themselves.
Sideshows such as the Journolist affair do plenty to get folks on the left and right agitated and incensed. But the real focus should be not on purveyors of opinion, but on the news reporters and other journalists who claim objectivity while delivering to readers and viewers content that is perceived as having a strong and unmistakable whiff of liberal bias.
Patrick Maines is president of The Media Institute, a non-profit organization that is funded by media and communications companies, including Gannett, parent of USA TODAY. The institute promotes a strong First Amendment, sound communications policies and excellence in journalism.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... 4_ST_N.htm
