5 WHAT NEXT?
�Emotion, anger, reason and belief tie together in the human species. We, as human beings can be pretty good at rational discussion and objective analysis�but none of us can be completely good at it. Our brains don�t work that way.�
Antonio Damasio, 1994 95
Would you buy a newspaper from this man?
Unfortunately, Damasio may be spot on. The media�s polarised state, as we have learned during the course of this project, arises out of flaws in society. Left and Right pitch ideological battle after ideological battle on the troubled earth of �professional journalism�. The storyteller envelops the story. The Jeffersonian ideal is rotting slowly in a dark, subjective prison�
But it doesn�t have to be that way. Does it?
In seeking solutions to the polarisation problem, we can theoretically point the finger at any number of impartial suspects. The Bush administration�s restrictive isolationism and hyper-patriotic rhetoric fuels distrust in the �objective� media environment. The armchair viewer, pepped up by the inflated egos of tabloid culture, finds solace in hybridised news infotainers. Budding quasi-journalists are suddenly acutely aware of their own shared significance, and, to paraphrase Jennings� 9/11 analogy 96 , lead the wagon trains Eastward and Westward, bidding farewell to the under populated hamlet of Objectivity, USA. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hell, just ask Murdoch. Journalists, in their lust for pseudo-masochistic glory, have lost touch with the fundamental principles that got them their careers in the first place. As Robert Fisk rightly asks: �Why do we try so hard to avoid the truth? All we have to do is tell the truth.�97
Whichever way you look at it, be it ideologically, theoretically, sociologically, philosophically or economically, the truth hurts. And journalism bears the brunt of it.
But every dark night is followed in time by the rising of the sun, and if American journalism can recover from polarisation, it may well find itself back in a Golden Age, where liberals and conservatives can freely debate in open social forums. A pipe dream? Not necessarily. I spoke to several leading media commentators, both liberal and conservative, as well as a number of individuals who have witnessed first hand the polarisation of the media in recent years, and asked them to hypothesise what the future may have in store for the Fourth Estate.
Keith Woods of the prestigious Poynter Institute, Florida, believes that the polarising effect is an evolutionary step in journalism: �What unites most journalists is the passion to make a difference in society. That is not the domain of the liberal, as the current discourse might suggest. What divides them is the sense that the other side is not playing by the rules, which is a huge temptation to ditch fairness or balance or the other values for the sake of making the difference they signed on to make. The battle is not new, just more pronounced. I think we�ve lost when one side wins. Otherwise, we�re continuing to evolve. And that must be a good thing.�98 In other words, for journalism to succeed, passion must outweigh petulance. Current polarisation trends may signify a shift away from the role the journalist as an objective social observer towards a more subjective model; yet in order to retain coherence, the passion that drives this shift must not be allowed to overwhelm it. The �zeal� with which O�Reilly, Franken et al embellish the hypothetical �opposition� is not altogether dissimilar to the �drive� that got them into journalism in the first place. A new direction may be all that is needed.
Roy Peter Clark, vice President at Poynter, finds solace in the advice of a couple of well-renowned sociologists. �I think that Kovach and Rosentiel 99 are right when they say that journalism should be primarily a discipline of verification -- not what it has become in many circles -- a discipline of assertion. They talk about "practical truth," and that's the kind of smaller truth that journalists can convey -- a rendering of the world that allows people to act in the interests of self government.�100 To �verify� is to subscribe to the idea of truth in journalism- a truth that the media, in presenting its wares must wholly subscribe to. Assertion is the poor man�s verification, a pandering to the inner self rather than the whole socio-political audience spectrum. The difference is subtle, but understandable. Journalism must redefine its boundaries, and embrace one form of �truth� over another. Otherwise its argument is corrupted by inconsistencies.
John Palmer, a former NBC White House correspondent, believes that the strengths displayed by traditional exponents of journalism will overcome aspiring pretenders. �Maybe I�m just an optimist, but I think in the foreseeable future there will be a main core of news organisations that try to tell it like it is. But I think that on the fringe there will always be that conservative point of view, and a liberal point of view... I think there will be this core of straight news that will prevail, while there will always be fringe alternatives.� By relegating ideologically charged journalism to outside the media circle, organisations can retain a modicum of objectivity. The requirement must be to keep exponents �on the fringe� out of the journalistic loop, and let them burn out under their own steam. The inner circle must retain independence from the outer; journalism must break the links with entertainment and corporate values and look inward to find its true self.
For Norman Solomon, syndicated columnist and executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, polarisation has become embedded in American society, a trait that has trickled through to journalism. It can be summed up, he argues �by that wry comment about the �golden rule�, those who have the gold make the rule, and in a similar way, when you dominate the media so much, you can redefine, when you are the superpower. Its too ingrained, to a matter of degree; its not a case of the same elephant wearing different trousers, it�s how many people the elephant is inclined to stamp on on any given day.�101 This is an interesting, if somewhat confusing analogy. The media has become an ideological think tank all to itself, and must revert to an apolitical or asocial status in order to regain credibility. The aggressive nature of the �Great American Media� needs to be placated by traditional objective reasoning- taking a �step back� in order to move forward. When �caged�, any hypothetical elephant longs for a return to the plains of Africa. The media must also find a way �back�, theoretically if not physically.
Danny Schechter is a filmmaker and executive editor of MediaChannel.org. He feels that news organisations� embracing of corporate and entertainment values far outweighs the simple �left-right� debate and is the fundamental flaw in modern journalism. �It�s more heat rather than light. This is why the old fashioned debate of liberal versus conservative actually masks a more disturbing reality. And its really more of an institutionalisation or corporatisation of news, and the corporate agenda is driving a lot of things. You have shorter stories, larger pictures, more lifestyle features, more celebrity coverage- is that more right or left? Its hard to say. You wouldn�t use those terms as a way of describing it.�102 By separating entertainment values from the polarisation debate, the focus is placed entirely on journalism itself. I would argue that the two are so ingrained that a complete separation is impossible, despite the obvious optimism. Then again, taking a �step back� enables the media to shrug off certain external variables and seek the �light� that Schechter refers to- clear, objective journalism. With the right kind of approach, the �Left-Right� debate need not exist at all.
Cliff Kincaid is editor of Accuracy in Media, a �grassroots citizens� watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage�103 . Despite its claims to balance, the organisation is dedicated to solely uncovering and exposing �liberal bias� in the media, relatively ignoring conservative biases which are similarly corruptive, if not more so. However, his argument is much the same. Kincaid notes: �It used to be, �who, what, when, where, why and how.� Now they add, �so what?� That is part of �Interpretive Reporting� and opens the door to personal opinion and bias. But objectivity, fairness and accuracy are goals to be achieved through hard work. The media should not compound the problem by failing to recognize there is a problem.�104 An increase in interpretive reporting corrupts the media and re-evaluates traditional values. The �so what?� variable is the ghost in the media machine and should be treated externally. A truthful media can exist, but the effort required to make it a reality has passed with the emergence of partisan journalism. Only by shedding its flawed �skin�, can journalism have another chance at greatness.
And fellow conservatives are inclined to agree. Paul Rodriguez, editor of InsightMag.com feels that the journalistic �craft� has suffered significantly through ideological �labelling�: �If newsmen their job well then on one can determine their leanings. If newsmen shift over to opinion then I as a consumer must be told. And while I as a consumer should not have to worry about a newsman's leanings it's all too often the case that it's quite clear -- and this is adisservice to what usually is overall good reportage.�105 An unnecessary evil, opinionated journalism clogs the arteries at the heart of the media. By refusing to reveal its own corruptive tendencies journalism misleads the public. For journalism to rise, Phoenix-like from the ideological ashes, it must allow itself to open up and examine its own misgivings, rather than someone elses. No spin. No manipulation. Through self-examination, polarisation becomes a superfluous issue when faced with the �greater good�- journalistic purity. It may not be too late�
And herein lies the paradox. Is it too much to argue that �conservatives�, �liberals� and moderates all want the same thing? Forget the �conflict�. Forget the �opposition�. This is a war being fought on two fronts�with only one frame of mind. The polarisation of the US media may is a phenomenon that echoes the divergent nature of American society; conversely, the Pledge of Allegiance extols the virtues of �one nation�under God�indivisible�. To break apart society is to break apart identity. By polarising itself, the media is not highlighting the failures of the �other�, but merely pointing out the discrepancies in itself. Walt Whitman wrote that �Only themselves understand themselves and the like of themselves�106 , and the self-perpetuating polarisation of the media carries this notion with it. It is a fractured argument in which both sides advance their cause through self-gratification, rather than acceptance and reconciliation. There is no �other�, and the misconstrued �opposition� only exists as a reaction. Polarisation, as a social phenomenon, is little more than a disagreement blown out of all proportion.
�I wish I had done more. I wish I had done more in hindsight. Just a little bit of humility, you see?�107
Apology on standby.
95 Antonio Damasio quoted in Jay Rosen, No media bias is not a dumb debate, PressThink, 24 October 2003, http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/24/bias_mrc.html
96 See footnote 33
97 Robert Fisk quoted in Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media? Basic Books, New York, 2003, p15
98 In interview
99 �Kovach and Rosenstiel� are Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, authors of The Elements of Journalism [Guardian Books, 2003]. On the matter of impartiality in journalism, their insight into the definition of �objectivity� is worth bearing in mind in the light of earlier discussions in this project. They write: "The term (objectivity) has become so misunderstood and battered, it mostly gets the discussion off track. ...originally it was not the journalist who was imagined to objective. It was his method. Today, however, in part because journalists have failed to articulate what they are doing, our contemporary understanding of this idea is mostly a muddle." p.41
100 In interview
101 In interview
102 In interview
103 Taken from the Accuracy In Media �mission statement�,
104 In interview
105 In interview
106 Walt Whitman, �Perfections�, from Leaves of Grass, full text of which is available online at http://sailor.gutenberg.org/etext98/lvgrs10.txt
107 Fittingly, the project�s final word is left to Bill O�Reilly. Bill O�Reilly, The O�Reilly Factor, 14 April 2004.