Answers to Previous Questions-Part 2

Here’s another answer for a question included in a past posting. This one is from October 9th: How do we restore balance to the tipsy scene presented by the CNBC financial anchors? Who can we rely on for reporting cause/effect/result in the economic world? And then do something to correct the problems? Are we doomed by our economic present? Are the OWS (Occupy Wall Street) protesters on to something? Are we listening to them? Do we care?

There are many points to consider in this ‘question’. Let me break it into component parts.

1. CNBC anchors project a point of view. Not all of them. Some are quite open and journalistic, i.e. don’t make conclusions or score political points for a favored ideology. But others do; shamelessly. What can we do to remove that content style from the program? It does not help us understand the facts being reported. Actually I think their comments distort understanding the facts. Then we wonder if facts were selected for reporting because they support a selected position.
2. Selection of interviewees on CNBC. Who selects them? The anchor of the segment? The producers of the network, or are they the anchor’s own producers?
3. How is journalistic balance produced and maintained? We want to hear diverse points of view; but how do we know it is fair reporting and not a manufactured presentation supporting a favored conclusion?
4. CNBS is one network; there are others doing the same. What do we do about them?
5. CNBC material is used in other NBC news programs. How do these embedded messages support fair journalism?
6. Occupy Wall Street protesters are messy and discomforting in method. But do they have a message of value? Are we listening? Are their speech and rights to assemble protected? If so, why is police force being used against them?

On the first part, A, journalism standards were formed long ago to support fair presentation of facts: who, what, when and where. The why is what we yearn for, but calls for conclusions based on incomplete set of facts. Conclusions emerge over time. We do not know what constitutes cause but we can pose questions to pursue; conclusions should be delayed until more is known. In time causal data forms patterns we can rely on to make conclusions. It takes time and patience. It takes disciplined thinking.

Live news programs produce what I call “talking head syndrome;” that’s when on-air staff fill open air with sound; their murmurings are not scripted so their chatter can lead to opinion posing as conclusive fact. That’s what panel discussions are for: open thinking on causes and future trends from diverse points of view. In time we will all witness what actually turns out to be cause/effect/result.

For the second part, B, many CNBC anchors ask an array of interviewees to offer their viewpoint. Those appear quite credible. Other anchors, however, clearly engage selected interviewees in skewed discussion. The question I have is: Do the anchors have any voice in selecting specific guests so they can engage in their own points of view? I doubt anyone will give a straight answer but the question needs to be asked with network officials.

On part C, I think we need to ask the network to provide a ‘bill of rights’ for the viewers. In essence they need to agree to present diverse points of view, also the facts. When an opinion piece is aired it should be labeled as such. It would be helpful if a panel discussion is planned and offered on these points of view later on.

Part D, I suggest we either pursue each network individually or merely don’t watch those that have abridged the rules of fair journalism. Eventually their ratings will sag and advertisers will abandon them like they did with Glenn Beck.

Part E requires us to ask the NBC parent organization to establish clear cut rules by which they use or reject CNBC material based on the fairness doctrine. Same for other networks using material from their sister organizations.

Eventually we may recognize a healthy change in what material is presented and how well it has been checked out as factual. There’s nothing wrong in speculating cause or trend of data, but it should be presented as that.

If this trend takes hold we may witness less volatility in financial markets. We could actually see confidence return to the market place.

Perhaps we might encourage all networks to create a collaborative program on fairness in all forms of reporting? It’s job would be a central hub where facts are checked and then aired as a public report card? Sort of like the Snopes internet site but just on TV journalism?

Regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement, I’ll save that for another day.

December 5, 2011