A helpful clarification on the news media

My last two posts have been on the news media and the dangerous ground that they are treading. Yesterday, a journalist was kind enough to make some helpful distinctions as to what is generally found under the heading of media–notice that the word news has dropped out for the moment. The poster said:

One, the problem in this country is the merger between entertainment-value media reporting (not necessarily good entertainment) and news-value media reporting. …

Which leads me to reaction number two. Because of the instant pressure in this case from the media (largely television/tabloid), the prosecutor allowed himself to be sucked into the wrong, but more glamorous charge. A quick perusal of Florida’s child abuse statutes reveals that the state has a neglect of a dependent charge, and it appears that it could have been aggravated for a lengthy sentence. Had they pursued that venue, all they would have needed were basic facts: 1. the child was in your care, 2. the child died in your care, 3. you did not report or seek help and 4. you then lied to the police who tried to help.

But neglect of a dependent is nowhere near as sexy as capital murder (a ridiculous stretch even if they’d had physical/direct evidence). I think this speaks to another problem in our criminal justice system/culture and that is that prosecutors often go for sexy instead of appropriate. …

I had heard before of the distinction between what the various networks prefer to call the “editorial” programs and the “news” programs. I have heard that distinction cited more than once. What it means is that the “editorial” programs are not held to the same level of accountability as the “news” programs. The journalist who posted commented:

As a newspaper reporter, I take my job and its responsibilities very seriously. One of those responsibilities is to be as fair, thorough and factual as I could possibly be, regardless of whatever feelings the case may arouse in me. But someone like XXXXX XXXXX, who is to legal journalism what XXXX XXXXXXXX is to political commentary, is not interested in either a. fairness, b. thoroughness and probably c. truth. XXXX is interested in ratings and ego.

I helpfully deleted the names mentioned so that those reading may not miss the point. It is a point that is cited in a very diplomatic and positive way by the various networks. That is, they will tout how they fact-check their news programs. And, let me point out that the programs that are labeled news programs on the various networks do often tend to keep a very high level of neutrality and have more fact-checked stories than the “editorial” programs. Please note that the periodic disclaimer about “editorial” programs that the various networks periodically issue is an admission that those are purely opinion programs whose content has not been closely fact-checked. Those programs are not trying to be neutral. In fact, quite often the harsher and more bombastic that those programs are–and sadly the less fact-checked–the larger share of the audience that they draw. Whenever a network is called by an organization, such as Politico or Snopes, on an inaccuracy in an “editorial” program, they promptly trot out the line that it is but an “opinion” program. Only when a network is called on an inaccuracy on a news program do they promptly apologize and broadcast the correction. In passing, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, and Fox News all fall into this pattern of apologizing and retracting only for their news programs.

But, here are the problems that this approach has for us. First, all four networks mentioned in the previous paragraph bill themselves as 24 hour news networks. Thus the typical listener is assuming that there is an attempt at neutrality during the whole 24 hours, not simply during the programs that have been designated as news programs. Since the majority of the programs on all four networks are actually “editorial” programs, this means that a regular viewer of anyone of those networks is more likely to see and hear an unsubstantiated opinion that a neutrally researched presentation! This is a misleading situation as it leads the viewer to assume that the viewpoints on their favorite network have been researched and fact-checked. Thus, anyone who disagrees with their favorite personalities is obviously a biased person who does not love the truth. Since many of the editorial personalities on the four networks appear to have been chosen for their ability to be regularly in conflict with someone or some idea or some proposal, this also leads to what we have seen in this country, the adoption of yelling and aggressive behavior as somehow being the normal way in which one communicates one’s beliefs.

More than that, eventually the idea of truth begins to take a serious hit. After one watches a steady diet of talking heads and yelling heads, one is left to conclude that there is no such thing as truth. For us Christians, this hits home in a very serious way. We are bound to Truth, Our Lord Jesus Christ himself. As he said of himself, he is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. When we do not fact check; when we adopt aggressive confrontative tactics to silence our opponent; when we begin to assume either that different people have different viewpoints and who knows what the truth is, or when we assume that our viewpoint is the only possibly true one, we are not siding with the angels. Satan is the one who is called the Father of Lies. When we tolerate “editorial” programs that are classified by the networks as “entertainment” programs rather than news programs or when we go even farther and begin to get all our hard news from those entertainment programs, we begin to behave more like the Father of Lies and less like he who is The Truth.

This does not mean that we will all end up agreeing. One needs only look at the Book of Acts to see that even Saint Luke recorded that there was no little debate. Yet, there was no little debate because they searched for the truth of the situation. The Christians did not simply continue to debate incessantly, but reached what decisions were necessary in order for the Church to be able to continue its work. In a couple of places there were compromises reached, but many times, if the issue did not need to be decided for the sake of the Church, then they left the freedom to have a variety of beliefs and to keep on arguing as necessary until either clarity came or the Lord returned, whichever was first. But, all this was based on the idea that there was and is Truth, not on the idea that one believes that way only because s/he is a Gentile and the other believes that way only because s/he is a Jew.

Finally, the loss of the idea of Truth and a love of Truth leads easily to bad jurisprudence. When being re-elected becomes more important than presenting (as Joe Friday used to say) “just the facts,” it becomes all too easy to ignore the lack of concrete evidence and to overcharge a defendant so that one gets the maximum or the “sexy” penalty and then people will be more willing to re-elect the prosecutor. As the journalist pointed out, the prosecutor had Casey Anthony dead to rights for “neglect of a dependent.” But, that charge was not as evocative as charging her with first-degree murder, a charge that is difficult to prove in the USA and usually requires that the prosecutor produce clear direct evidence of prior planning. Simply put, he was not able to show that and the jury voted to acquit on that charge in a very short period of time.

What lesson is in it for Christians? Become a lover of Truth. Fact-check your favorite “editorial” program. Speak the truth in love, as Scripture says, and avoid confrontative tactics. And, make sure you are siding with the angels when you decide to take a hard stance on an issue.