Influence trumps truth: the rise of the post-journalistic world

"The honest, disinterested voice of a true journalist carries an authority that no self-branded liberal or conservative can have."

In the October issue of The Atlantic journalist and editor Mark Bowden writes a beautiful piece on the tragic swap of thoughtful reporting for quick, "ammunition" journalism. He revisits the media's treatment of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. Large news outfits were drawing their clips from political operatives--including bloggers--not professional journalists. And this is not unique to the Sotomayor story. Bowden calls this the post-journalist world. This world is no longer about facts.

Bloggers' intentions are to highlight their side, to build a case for their opinion. On most occasions, blogs are our personal op-ed pages. Words, facts, quotes, even video clips can be manipulated to our liking and disseminated with little fear of harsh consequences. And here, in the blogosphere the value is placed on winning, not accuracy. Influence trumps truth. What a loaded shift that is.

Throughout my journalism education, we were overwhelmed with the importance of reporting true facts, with the virtuous purpose of equiping citizens to sovereignly govern themselves. Journalism had the power to temper fear-mongering and deception often coupled with politics. The rise and maturation of the newspaper provided an invaluable public service. It was the fourth branch of government--the ultimate check. Bowden notes, "Without journalism, the public good is viewed only through a partisan lens, and politics becomes blood sport."

The game of politics has unlikely changed over time. Persuasion has always been a necessary tool and power is always the aim. But there was a healthy caution to the game--provided by the journalist. Now, as hard reporting gives way to the quest for influential banter, truth becomes irrelevant.

The collapse of journalism seems to be a final victory for relativists. But can society truly rest happy in an environment where truth is undecipherable? I'm a strong believer in the power of truth. And therefore, I cannot accept that journalism has seen its best days. One day, truth will rise again.

As Bowden poignantly writes, "Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth."

Deja vu?

Recent political slander has been awfully redundant. It seems as if political pundits--and the average American mudslinger--have forgotten parallel events in our recent political history. We're so quick to anger over events that we've defended in the past.

Last week, parents, politicians, activists, and scholars were up in arms over President Obama's plan to address our nation's schoolchildren on Tuesday. (I found some validity to the frustrations, but for reasons beyond the simple address. See last week's post)

This week, Representative Joe Wilson's disrespectful outburst during President Obama's health care address has raised quite a stink--and over a million dollars, too--among liberals of all walks, and moderate or level-headed conservatives.



Likewise, when President George H. W. Bush gave a similar speech to school children in 1991, Democratic lawmakers ordered an investigation and The Washington Post wrote, "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props."

In other similar bout of deja vu, President George W. Bush was booed by Democrats during his State of the Union speech in 2005.



Today, mud slinging is the name of the game--even in prime time media. I certainly don't seek to silence the dissension, that is what makes America so great. And, I happen to agree that our elected officials should respect each other in all arenas, and that any president's address to young and impressionable should be carefully scrutinized. However, let us of be mindful of double standards and think twice before we respond in fury. When we scold a Republican for lashing out against our Democrat president, let's remember that just a few years ago Democrats were booing our Republican president. When we protest our liberal president's address to our children, let's remember we saw a conservative president do the same thing a decade ago.

I think Thomas Paine said it best, "Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice."

Coverage beyond Afropessimism: Lessons from New News Out of Africa

The African continent is diversely rich land with dynamic stories beneath its surface, stories beyond that of Afropessimism—the turmoil and hopelessness often displayed in today’s media. I recently re-read Charlayne Hunter-Gault's New News Out of Africa and was as inspired as the first time around. In her book she lays out the role that journalists play in sharing the new and hopeful news of Africa.

 In the first section of her book she recounts her award-winning coverage of South Africa. The second part of New News out of Africa tells a story that’s often overlooked by the foreign media. Hunter-Gault uncovers a renaissance movement that is sweeping across Africa, the new and hopeful news. For decades now, Africa has been portrayed to the rest of the world in the context of the four D’s—death, disease, disaster and despair—which has created an overwhelming “Afropessimistic” attitude towards the continent.  But rising up from the ashes of famine, genocide, poverty and dictatorship is a new generation of African leaders. This continent stands in the shadows, anxiously waiting for the world to see its potential. And it’s up to the journalists to paint hope into picture the world sees.

            In her last section, she discusses the role of the media in this new renaissance. “If there is to be an African renaissance, we, the media, remain a vital part of it,” Namibian editor Gwen Lister said. In the last decade, independent media voices have increased and strengthened, and they are paving the way for new news. Hunter-Gault writes, “the emergence of the African journalist also holds out the promise of influencing the perspective of international journalist, who all too often continue to feed the world distorted pictures of the continent.” She notes that many international journalists perpetuate the four D’s—death, disease, disaster and despair—in their coverage of the continent. Often editors only want the “bleeding” stories, or journalists’ coverage of an issue is shallow because they only “parachute” in long enough to gather some sound bites and facts to report back.

            Hunter-Gault calls the foreign media to be vigilant in their coverage of Africa. When democracies fail and the freedom of the press is restricted within a country, the responsibility falls on “journalists outside the country both to make contact with the beleaguered journalists inside and to keep the country’s story alive in their media.” But again, there is new news here. The African media is progressing, and finding a new independence. They, like government leaders, are taking ownership. “African journalists are now being seen as the first line of defense when it comes to making sure there are checks and balances on their individual governments,” CNN Africa correspondent Jeff Koinange said.

            As Hunter-Gault ends her book, she asserts that African journalists will best tell the new news out of Africa.  We need to encourage Africans to tell their stories, the stories they live, the stories that will “give rise to a new generation of Africans and also to a new generation of the world’s people who will understand the continent in a way that will them to embrace is as the mother of us all.”

Madame Pelosi's jet

"Madame Pelosi wasn't happy with the small private jet that comes with the Speaker's job...no, Madame Pelosi was aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so she ordered a Big Fat 200 seat jet that could get her back to California without stopping!"

I’ve heard about this rumor quite a bit over the last 3 years—and it’s infuriated me, of course. So like any good journalism graduate, I decided to look into the details. For many, this is old news. But I was tired of receiving forwarded emails regarding the topic, so I wanted to create a simple hyperlink that could relay truth.

After Sept. 11, 2001 President Bush decided for security reasons (because the speaker of the House is next in line after the v.p. for presidential succession) that the speaker should travel via military planes. According to the Andrews Air Force Base spokesperson, Pelosi almost always flew the same Air Force C-20B, a 12-seater plane, as her predecessor Dennis Hastert. When Pelosi became speaker, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood (according to his own account) worried that the small craft would be unable to travel to her home district of San Francisco without stopping to refuel. Livingood, (who was first elected by a Newt Gingrich-led House in ’95), asked the Air Force and the Department of Defense about getting a bigger plane. However, according to the articles I looked up, Pelosi didn’t actually request a larger plane, just one that would allow for nonstop flights (still a little high maintenance, I’ll contend). White House spokesman Tony Snow even denied rumors that Pelosi wasn’t asking for a larger plane. Anyway, just thought I’d pass this along, as I was surprised (but comforted) to hear the truth.

graduated.

Yesterday, I graduated from Azusa Pacific University with a Bachelor's of Arts in political science & journalism.


In two weeks I'll be moving to Washington, DC to work as a research assistant in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. And off I go!

published

An article I wrote this past summer while interning at American Enterprise Institute was published today on The American, a magazine focused on political and entrepreneurial ideas in the marketplace.

The article is about two recent college graduates who are blending their business minds with their caring hearts. It's part commerce, part philanthropy. As the organization's executive director says, it's an "I'll meet you in the middle" approach.

There is much to be harvested on this middle ground. I find much hope for the impoverished world through social enterprise--a blend of economic competition and humanitarian compassion. Such a combination has a promising future, and one that seems to appease this rising generation of business and political leaders.

the woes of relativism in journalism

Being part of a college newspaper could be one of the bigger tests of self-esteem. Having your words in ink for all your peers to read and critique can be nerve-racking, especially when they stir up controversy. As a former opinion editor for my student newspaper, I remember always being a little nervous whenever the paper was distributed. Not only were my thoughts open to the public, but I also had to take responsibility for the opinions of four or five other student writers.

It took me several issues to gain the confidence to write and assign hard-hitting stories on issues like birth control and abortion, global health, political parties, public policies, sexual abuse and campus affairs. However, essential to the journalism education is learning how to take a stand and stay standing in the midst of opposition and criticism. No lecture or book can prepare a budding journalist for his or her first dose of disparagement.

Unfortunately, I’ve found my student newspaper is currently not providing such an education to its journalism students. Controversial subjects like gay marriage, race relations, party politics, foreign policy, gender issues—all hot topics in light of this year’s presidential elections—are absent from the opinion pages. According to inside sources, the paper has intentionally shied away from such subjects, particularly proposition 8, because the editors feel they cannot ask students to take an unpopular stance on issues that may result in negative backlash from the student body.

Beyond protecting student writers, editors have also noted self-censorship for the sake of self-preservation. They expressed concern that if sections were too controversial, the university administration may force censorship, as seen in other student newspapers like APU rival Biola University’s The Chimes. Because of a few inappropriate and touchy articles, The Chimes is required to submit their copy for staff review before going to print.

However, one look at the opinion pages of The Chimes and it’s clear that their mandated review has not kept the paper from covering hard-hitting issues. The Opinion section boasts headlines like “What if the Right is wrong?”, “The reasons behind ‘No-bama’”, and “Eugenics, systematic genocide and President-elect Barack Obama.” To be fair, APU's The Clause has touched on issues like pornography, women in leadership, religion and science, and the presidential elections. However, approach is everything. By the end of many articles, the writers seem to have all but retracted her or his original opinion.

So who or is what is to blame? While the opinion editor sure is at fault for coddling her writers, I cannot help but think it goes deeper. My generation is a generation of relativists. We’re quick to condemn intolerance and slow to judge anyone. Those, in and of themselves, are great qualities. However, has relativism begun to taint Generation Y’s opinion writing?

I often find myself writing a “no judgment” clause in the midst of my columns and editorials. I’m quick to remind my readers that my way may not be the right way. To offend anyone but the close-minded folk would be so “intolerant” of me! But what is the point of living in a free society if we walk around with our tails in between our legs in fear that our beliefs may cause offense?

Maybe this aversion to oppose others comes from the way we were parented. Many of my generation grew up with “helicopter” parents—the ones that bully our coaches into putting us in the game or confront the mothers of our archenemies. We grew up with the desire, or burden, to please Mom and Dad because they poured all their energy and resources into our success.

Or maybe it’s because in the midst of our human rights campaigns and protests, we’ve come to believe that everyone deserves the right to say what they want, love who they want, and worship how they want. Ironically, though, relativism actually ends up nullifying the concept of justice because relativism says there are no standards that are absolute. And my generation fights for justice on the basis that it is a value that should apply to everyone.

Regardless of the root of paradoxical relativism, it’s hurting the expression of ideas. By shying away from offending, the student newspaper is surrendering its freedoms of speech. It is a sad day for those of us who daily enjoy First Amendment rights when relativism begins to infringe on the freedom of ideas and beliefs. Students, both writers and readers of news and opinion, need to begin to take a stand or the healthy dialogue that comes from disagreements will begin to whither on this campus. And that should begin with the leadership of campus opinion editors.