The television news media has refused the role of observant reporter in order to become a machine of editorial persuasion. We are submitted daily to a constant barrage of subtleties aimed more at winning our minds than feeding them. Exposure of these techniques of persuasion, stopping the hemorrhaging of free thought, and establishing a "fairness and accuracy" guideline for the press will meet an unfulfilled need in our society.
We are said to be in the Age of Information. It necessarily follows that we desperately require a trustworthy authority to report world events. This knowledge is pertinent for sociological growth yet we cannot be everywhere at once. We therefore look to the television networks to provide us with coverage of what's happening in our surroundings. This need puts us at the mercy of the reporter. The problem is that the majority of the viewing public have chosen not to think while they watch and the news media is aware of it and has taken advantage.
We would be hard-pressed to find a social circle without some person repeating some chilling tale of a horrifying trauma, or a shamefully oppressive government in a far off land.If called upon to cite their sources, they tend to spew what has become the universally accepted endorsement for truth, "I saw it on the news." This is usually met with looks of satisfaction from those listening, and no further questions regarding the source are raised. This is blind acceptance and is the result of years of intentional and unintentional persuasive conditioning. Another name for this persuasive conditioning is happy consciousness, discussed by William Covino in his book The Elements of Persuasion. This is described, in part, as the tendency to accept what is offered from the larger society without considering alternatives.(Covino 104) the need for Europe to learn from the American economy when Galbraith actually condemned Germany's adopting of American deregulation and privatization because the policies were failures for America in the 1980's. These are only a few examples of slanted reporting in order to bring about a favorable change of mind in the public.
How do we protect ourselves from falling into this trap of subtle brainwashing? How do we stop the hemorrhaging of free thought within ourselves? We must first begin to see every broadcast as an opportunity to use our brain, not as an opportunity to give it a rest (i.e. entertainment). Secondly, it is imperative that each story be viewed with an objective eye. There is a saying in the Bible that reads, " You must first remove the plank from your own eye that you may see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye." This applies to the one seeking to improve the quality of the news media. Objective viewing within themselves absolutely must come first! Only then can they see clearly how to call for objective reporting. This isn't so easy to accomplish.
Covino writes that objectivity in human beings is rare if not impossible to achieve, since we all have bias due to personal beliefs, convictions, and opinions shaped in our youth by various influences. He goes on to say that what is needed to further objectivity and prevent or reduce uninvited persuasion is the application of critical consciousness. This is the ability to detect and evaluate the elements of persuasion that are at work in the larger society. Persuasive techniques are neutralized in the mind of a person who practices critical consciousness.
Arguing that the press is liberal or conservative simply mires the issue in a political debate which polarizes both sides and leaves it unresolved. Which side it is biased for is irrelevant. The point is, the media is biased, period, and not objective. When was the last time we saw an "editorial comment" or a "point/counterpoint" segment on a newscast? We will probably not see that for quite some time due to the fact that its redundant. The editorial position on an issue is now simply built in to the reporting. Editorial comments are beneficial and even conducive to a healthy exchange of ideas but when they are misrepresented as fact, they cease to be editorial commentary and become outright deception.
There is hope. We can change the way the media reports the news, after "removing our plank" of course, by taking an active role in communicating our dislike for biased reporting to those in charge of the newscast. One organization exists that does exactly that. They are called F.A.I.R. which is an acronym for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. They list mailing and email addresses as well as phone numbers for major networks and editor-in-chiefs. They also post regular "Action Alert" articles on the internet which draw attention to agenda-driven reporting. Another way of changing the news media's approach is by hitting them where it hurts, right in the sponsor! Refusing to support their sponsors and then notifying them and their sponsors of this decision will bring about an eventual change. This will lead them to reevaluate their practices and adopt a guideline of accuracy, free of persuasion, which will result in a more fair minded media.
The conservatives say the press is too liberal and the liberals claim it to be too conservative. This might cause us to mistake the news media for having achieved a centered position. This is not the case and more importantly, it is not even the issue. The issue is a reliable representation of events in our world. We need this now and it is within our grasp to acquire it.
When news broadcasts first began in America, in the 1920's, they were silent newsreel films of soft propaganda for the government yet were embraced with complete trust as representing fact. This evolved, in the 1930's, into newsreels with sound which included interviews and famous speeches of heads of state or "fireside chats" with the President during the depression years. The marriage between the visual media and politics was then firmly in place.
The invention of television in the 1950's brought this marriage into our homes. We even went so far as to vote one of the earliest television newsmen, Walter Cronkite, as "the most trusted man in America" . What we didn't realize was that we were becoming extremely susceptible to suggestion and subsequently vulnerable to persuasion. 15 years of overly conservative and censored broadcasts were the result. This changed violently however with the heightening of the Vietnam War. The American people were divided for the first time on the issue of news content. This accomplished a great deal for reporting. It allowed journalists to photograph and report events as they actually happened with little or no fear of censorship. Unfortunately, reporters flocked to the opposite extreme and began reporting events as they saw them and not as they actually happened.
Today, every major network's broadcast, both national and local, is filled with attempts to persuade its audience to a particular viewpoint. The methods they use, which are mentioned by Covino, include appeals to love and appeals to hate. In the Bilbray v. Ensign congressional race of 1994, KVBC channel 3 appealed to our love of comfort and success by demonstrating all of the great accomplishments of its candidate, Bilbray. They appealed to our hatred of "rocking the boat" by casting Ensign in the unfavorable light of inexperience and radicalism. They even went so far as to broadcast Bilbray's "victory" speech in which he crowed about his triumph and suggested the inexperienced Ensign run for a lesser office than congressman next time. KVBC and Bilbray were both horribly embarrassed to find that while they were gloating , the last district in Green Valley reported in and Ensign actually won the election!
Inaccuracies are not limited to local news but extend to national news as well. On September 19, ABC news aired a show entitled "Is America #1?" by ABC correspondent John Stoessel. Though their position on the topic is clearly stated at the end of the show, we didn't have to wait that long to recognize it. Whether intentional or unintentional, Stoessel misquoted economists, cited imaginary statistics, or contradicted fact in order to support his stance on the subject. He alluded to "an impoverished third world economy" of China which was contradictory to a speech given by Lawrence Summers of the Treasury Department the previous year in which Summers said "China has been the fastest growing economy in history since reform began in 1980. (F.A.I.R. article: ABC News Gives Up On Accuracy Sept. 1999). Stoessel also misquotes University of Texas economist James Galbraith as endorsing the need for Europe to learn from the American economy when Galbraith actually condemned Germany's adopting of American deregulation and privatization because the policies were failures for America in the 1980's. These are only a few examples of slanted reporting in order to bring about a favorable change of mind in the public.
How do we protect ourselves from falling into this trap of subtle brainwashing? How do we stop the hemorrhaging of free thought within ourselves? We must first begin to see every broadcast as an opportunity to use our brain, not as an opportunity to give it a rest (i.e. entertainment). Secondly, it is imperative that each story be viewed with an objective eye. There is a saying in the Bible that reads, " You must first remove the plank from your own eye that you may see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye." This applies to the one seeking to improve the quality of the news media. Objective viewing within themselves absolutely must come first! Only then can they see clearly how to call for objective reporting. This isn't so easy to accomplish.
Covino writes that objectivity in human beings is rare if not impossible to achieve, since we all have bias due to personal beliefs, convictions, and opinions shaped in our youth by various influences. He goes on to say that what is needed to further objectivity and prevent or reduce uninvited persuasion is the application of critical consciousness. This is the ability to detect and evaluate the elements of persuasion that are at work in the larger society. Persuasive techniques are neutralized in the mind of a person who practices critical consciousness.
Arguing that the press is liberal or conservative simply mires the issue in a political debate which polarizes both sides and leaves it unresolved. Which side it is biased for is irrelevant. The point is, the media is biased, period, and not objective. When was the last time we saw an "editorial comment" or a "point/counterpoint" segment on a newscast? We will probably not see that for quite some time due to the fact that its redundant. The editorial position on an issue is now simply built in to the reporting. Editorial comments are beneficial and even conducive to a healthy exchange of ideas but when they are misrepresented as fact, they cease to be editorial commentary and become outright deception.
There is hope. We can change the way the media reports the news, after "removing our plank" of course, by taking an active role in communicating our dislike for biased reporting to those in charge of the newscast. One organization exists that does exactly that. They are called F.A.I.R. which is an acronym for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. They list mailing and email addresses as well as phone numbers for major networks and editor-in-chiefs. They also post regular "Action Alert" articles on the internet which draw attention to agenda-driven reporting. Another way of changing the news media's approach is by hitting them where it hurts, right in the sponsor! Refusing to support their sponsors and then notifying them and their sponsors of this decision will bring about an eventual change. This will lead them to reevaluate their practices and adopt a guideline of accuracy, free of persuasion, which will result in a more fair minded media.
The conservatives say the press is too liberal and the liberals claim it to be too conservative. This might cause us to mistake the news media for having achieved a centered position. This is not the case and more importantly, it is not even the issue. The issue is a reliable representation of events in our world. We need this now and it is within our grasp to acquire it.
