Why is it so difficult for others to believe in the good of
other people? It seems an automatic truth that we distrust others before we
trust them. Meet a stranger and wonder what he’s up to? Or observe him a bit
and decide he’s OK? Or settle on something else?
In public discourse – mostly through public media – I can
understand why we are skeptical at first, but over time we develop trust levels
for the media outlet or its staff. In that case we come to trust them – the
media outlet and the staff. Like NBC News and Brian Williams. Or CBS News and
Walter Cronkite? Or David Brokaw and many others?
It is normal to become comfortable with those personages we
tap each day for news about the world. It is routine and expectable. We go on
automatic pilot and hear the happenings of the day from these people. Usually
we do this with few questions.
That is until we catch an error, or an overstatement, or a
slightly bruised report on what happened and why. Maybe it is the ‘why’ being
answered for us that sparks a tiny bit of suspicion that what we are hearing
isn't exactly the whole truth. I’m not sure why a question develops in my head
at the time, but the question builds until I’m questioning my trust in the
person and his message.
Brian Williams is of course a good example of this. Colored
news is what we are mulling now after revelations that Williams didn't exactly
report the news accurately. He colored his role in it. He made the event sound
a bit more hazardous to his person than it actually was. Eventually we begin to
question not just what he reports, but the explanation as to why the happening
occurred in the first place.
It is a short distance to wondering what was left out
intentionally, or what was inserted as fact when it was truly a supposition.
Reporting the news is difficult precisely because it involves our interest,
wonder and integration into our established mindset. Internally we are asking –
“How does this report affect my understanding of the topic?” Has my past
thinking been in error on this subject?”
Something happens and we have to feel comfortable with it in
our own context. If it doesn't we wonder longer and deeper as to its meaning.
A reporter senses this void of wonder in his audience. He
attempts to fill it. He explains what has happened and what is the likely
cause. The trouble is he doesn’t know the latter. Not really. And he won’t
until much later when all the facts are in and the relationships of still more
facts and tangential parts of the story become fully known. This takes time.
And thinking. And wondering.
Soon, without solid facts to go on, opinion creeps into the
scenario. Too often the opinion is a shading of the facts, and impartial
collection of events, and then a conclusion is drawn without all the supporting
details.
Placed in the context of cable news outlets, mainline public
news networks scramble to compete with the latest headlines and news. Perhaps
the rush is the problem. At any rate short cuts are easily taken and news
reports are aired prior to full vetting of the facts. If that is true – and it
may not be, others will need to make that judgment – it is a short step to
doing the same with self aggrandizing reporting. The reporter becomes the
personality and the expected expert.
Something larger is born. The news is enhanced by
personality. And the report may be false but delivered in a beautiful package
that cannot possibly seem bad.
When news is altered by fact, context or personality, we are
consumers of propaganda rather than history in the making.
Journalism in our current age is fraught with many problems.
Consumer beware. Sad but true, whether on the local scene or international
stage.
We grieve not for the Brian Williams of today’s news
industry, but rather to the loss of our innocence. And trust.
February 16, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment