For those who like to wrestle with philosophy -- an extremely interesting analysis of the relationship between rhetoric, journalism and society on a blog called Rhetorica.net. While addressing what he calls a "field theory of journalism," Dr. Andrew Cline gives a great summary of the ideas behind objective journalism's structure. He does so to set up an analysis of what he calls "civic journalism" -- I haven't read his ideas on this yet, so I can't comment. But my response to his "epistemology of journalism" rings true to me. I still can't believe that the effort to find verifiable truth and communicate that truth will not be as valuable to citizens trying to make informed decisions as a cacaphony of biased opinion.

Just discovered a fascinating blog by Terry Mattingly called Get Religion. It's an ongoing examination of how religion is covered by mass media news. I don't agree with him on all fronts, but I find the postings are thoughtful and thought-provoking. Here's a recent posting that I think raises good questions about the stories on Mrs. Roberts' abortion views that ran last week, and demonstrates neither side of the political spectrum is innocent of bias, and of the distortion that bias creates.

No issue better illustrates the re-definition of objective journalism to mean "balanced journalism" -- journalism that presents both sides of an argument without challenging the rational basis of either -- than global warming. And none better reveals the real damage done by abandoning the search for objective truth.

Since taking office, the Bush administration and its propaganda troops have defended their irresponsible denial of the dangers of global warming by saying "the science is not definitive." They have been able to confuse the public about the relationship between the regulation -- rather, the lack of regulation -- of man-made toxic emissions and their negative effects on the earth's atmosphere, primarily through manipulation of the media's inclination toward "balance" over truth.

Read this column from the June 1, 2004 Boston Globe, an attack on the film "The Day After Tomorrow" and its depiction of catastrophic climate change due to global warming. The author is identified as James M. Taylor, editor of Environment & Climate News. The implication is that Mr. Taylor is an expert (read scientific expert) on environmental and climate issues. But who is Mr. Taylor, really? Read his own bio from the website of his employer, The Heartland Institute. Mr. Taylor is no scientist -- he's a lawyer and professional propagandist for the right.

Why did the Globe run this column? They must have felt the obligation to run a dissenting view from that conveyed by the film, in order to seek some balance in the messages and perspectives its readers were seeing and hearing. In doing so, they abandoned all sense of objective value of that perspective -- they gave a platform to a statement from someone who had no scientific standing.

They gave the standard of false balance primacy over truth. And this dynamic has been repeated again and again and again for years, in newspapers and over the airwaves, confusing the public about the level of danger that truly exists, and how our government's refusal to exert greater regulatory controls is endangering the future of humanity. (For the truth about what science says about global warming, read this summary from Science Magazine.)

What would a real commitment to objectivity mean? It doesn't mean that the Globe should run statements from the propagandists on either side of the political spectrum on the issue. It means the Globe should have investigated the science and told its readers, "To the best of our ability to understand, this is the scientific truth about global warming." That is the responsibility of a journalist -- find out the truth, and tell it.

Kirk Caraway, the internet editor for the Nevada Appeal, asks a very obvious question about Bush's budget - why didn't anyone ask any tough questions about it? But I like what he notes about the degradation of objectivity:

"You see, reporters are taught to tell all sides of the story, and present them equally. And this seems like a fair way to report the news, until the story subjects figure out how easy it is to manipulate the process.

"It's really rather simple. If you are in a position of power, tell a big lie, the bigger the better, and when anyone questions you on it, attack them as biased or partisan. The press will treat each side as equal, and the lie is passed on as truth."

When the press cedes its rights to government, no matter what its intention, everyone loses. Time Magazine tried to buy protection for Matt Cooper by giving up his notes - an act they justified with murky legalese in this week's issue. And today it seems they not only betrayed their constitutional duty, they didn't protect Mr. Cooper, either. I can understand those who believe Cooper and Miller's silence only helps Karl Rove get away with another dirty deed, as argued cogently in Editor and Publisher. But as only the NYT seems to recognize, there is a bigger issue at stake than Mr. Rove's obscene manipulation of reporters, and that's the press's own self-destruction. Objective journalists should not participate in disseminating propoganda; but neither can news outlets give up their sources to the Federal or any other government.

Tag: Time Magazine

Two stories that demonstrate the battle of truth vs. "balance" is not going well -- one high profile, the other lost in the din over Justice O'Conner. The quiet story: The capitulation of the National Parks Service to right-wing groups protesting footage in an educational video shown at the Lincoln Memorial. The footage shows brief clips of African-American, women and gay rights protests. No doubt the video will be re-edited to either excise the footage or add, as one fundamentalist spokesperson said in the AP story, "footage of Promise Keepers" (an equally oppressed minority throughout American history). The bigger story, of course, was TIME Magazine's cave on the Miller case. If the institutions of journalism continue to concede what little First Amendment rights remain to them, truth will lose. TIME's editorial and reportorial staff should walk out the front door and not come back until their ownership recognizes its social and constitutional responsibilities might require some expense in legal fees from time to time.