Real Reporting Is About Revealing Truth; Not Granting 'Equal Weight' To Bogus Arguments
from the nyt-failures dept
Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has long been the leading advocate in condemning the prominence of "he said/she said" journalism in the mainstream media. This kind of journalism is driven by a complete distortion of what it means to be an "objective" journalist. Bad journalists seem to think that if someone is making a claim, you present that claim, then you present an opposing claim, and you're done. They think this is objective because they're not "picking sides." But what if one side is batshit crazy and the other is actually making legitimate claims? Shouldn't the job of true journalists be to ferret out the truth and reveal the crazy arguments as crazy? Rosen's latest calls out the NY Times for falling into the bogus "he said/she said" trap yet again. This time it's on an article about plagiarism and copyright infringement charges being leveled from one biographer of Ronald Reagan against another. We wrote about this story as well, and we looked at the arguments of both sides, and then noted that author Craig Shirley's arguments made no sense at all, as he was trying to claim ownership of facts (something you can't do). Furthermore, his claims of plagiarism were undermined by the very fact that he admitted that competing biographer Rick Perlstein's quotes were different. Shirley claimed that "difference" in the quotes showed that Perlstein was trying to cover up the plagiarism, but... that makes no sense.Of course, when the NY Times reported on this, it did the "he said/she said" thing, providing no enlightenment whatsoever to the public who was reading it about whose argument actually was legit, and whose was ridiculous. Reporter Alexandra Alter played the false equivalence card:
Mr. Perlstein, 44, suggested that the attack on his book is partly motivated by conservatives’ discomfort with his portrayal of Reagan. Mr. Shirley is president and chief executive of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, which represents conservative clients like Citizens United and Ann Coulter.As Rosen notes, this is the "easy" way out for a journalist. Actually figuring out who's right takes work, and hell, you might be wrong. So why take the risk:
But Mr. Shirley and his lawyer contend that Mr. Perlstein paraphrased original research without properly giving credit. “The rephrasing of words without proper attribution is still plagiarism,” Mr. Shirley said in an interview.
You’re safer because you could be wrong if you choose, so why choose? You’re safer because even if you’re not wrong you can be accused of bias, and who needs that? You’re safer because people will always argue about [fill in some bitterly contested narrative here] and you don’t want to be a contestant in that. In the middle is safe. Neither/nor is safe. Not having a view of the matter is safe… Right?But, as Rosen notes, thanks to the internet these days, newspapers are increasingly having trouble with this kind of lazy "safe" journalism. Because the public will call them out when they avoid reporting the truth, favoring a false narrative instead. In this case, the NYT's public editor, Margaret Sullivan, (whose job it is to examine whether or not the NY Times is best serving the public) called the paper out for this weak effort in response to complaints from the public. She directly notes the problem of this he said/she said journalism:
By taking it seriously, The Times conferred a legitimacy on the accusation it would not otherwise have had.As Rosen further points out in his blog post, the ability of the public to weigh in may be changing the equation here. The "easy" and "lazy" response of just doing he said/she said journalism won't cut it because you'll get called out on it. Journalism should be about reporting what's true, not just what people say is true. The continued use of he said/she said is actually "reckless behavior that may easily blow up in its face." Rosen even points out that the BBC is now specifically retraining its reporters to stop inserting "false balance" into stories where there's an underlying truth and an attempt to distort it. It seems amazing that this even needs to be repeated, but it's been that way for so long in many publications.
And while it is true that Mr. Perlstein and his publisher were given plenty of opportunity to respond, that doesn’t help much. It’s as if The Times is saying: “Here’s an accusation; here’s a denial; and, heck, we don’t really know. We’re staying out of it.” Readers frequently complain to me about this he said, she said false equivalency — and for good reason.
So I’m with the critics. The Times article amplified a damaging accusation of plagiarism without establishing its validity and doing so in a way that is transparent to the reader. The standard has to be higher.
Hopefully, the ability of the public to call it out will make more lazy journalists and editors recognize what used to be the "safe" move is no longer so safe.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alexandra alter, craig shirley, false equivalency, he said she said, jay rosen, journalism, margaret sullivan, reporting, rick perlstein, ronald reagan, truth
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One person's "balance" is another's wildly corrupt, morally bankrupt, exploitative society. The use of the word often connotes that both sides of an argument are equally fair, and equally at fault, which is impossible.
Forget balance. Aim for the truth and correct your steering whenever needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd FAR rather see a bullshit argument given the same weight as a valid one, and be left alone to determine which is which than only be given one side, and not knowing if that was actually bullshit.
This particular example is more a failure of not giving the whole argument for either side than it is a failure for giving both to begin with. They can't just open the forum for discussion and call that good journalism, but neither should they be just be repeating the talking points of either side without hearing from the other.
If ALL the facts are laid bare, the truth becomes clear. But getting them all is not just hard, it is completely undermined by most people's non-existant attention span. I certainly don't trust most news organizations to properly filter down the facts to just what's relevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Sometimes the crazy is crazy. Giving two sides an equal amount of time when one side definitely is not true is insanity. Fox does this all the damn time and claims they are "fair and balanced." They are neither because not only do they give the crazy equal time, they spin the truth and then argue about it with a bunch of dumbasses, some of whom aren't even experts. Why are you giving someone who knows nothing about the subject equal time (sometimes more) than the guy who has PhD in the field?
Every publication is biased. "Fair and balanced" is neither fair nor balanced when the clear-cut crazy argument is given equal time to the truth because it makes the crazy seem valid. When it is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets start with "damn lies and statistics". Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli if you care to believe Mark Twain.
There are many journalists who write about the economy. Statistics is of course a major source of economic information. Now, if journalism is about truth, and statistics are just lies, it would be impossible to be an economic journalist.
qed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Same goes for statistic themselves.
But I like the illustration you created. The opening move was outstanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
journalistic due process?
However, I have to say that one line out of this story really caught my eye:
Actually figuring out who's right takes work, and hell, you might be wrong
It's not just that they might get it wrong, but also that they could be making the minds up for their readers as well, without any of the sort of journalistic due process that is needed.
Look at the whole deal from Ferguson. The initial stories came out with the "White cop kills unarmed black boy", and without presentation of any of the other sides, people went off like a bomb. Over a few days, it has turned out that the story isn't quite as simple as we might like it to be. The rush to journalistic judgement, the tone and the direction the story took initially (and all the angry talking heads on the major US news channels) has slowly turned. the 'unarmed boy' was a near adult and certainly bigger than most of us, he may have been coming from robbing a store, and there may have been a physical confrontation with the cop before the shooting. Oh oops, the talking heads are all in hiding now, quickly coming to realize that they rushed to judgement, didn't want to present the "batshit crazy" idea that the cop may have been doing his job to some extent, and so on.
The failure of the media to provide the other side and to consider anything other than the story fed to them is a as much of a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because the *reasons* should also be given. Not just a proclamation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ET the Pope
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: journalistic due process?
Over a few days, it has turned out that the story isn't quite as simple as we might like it to be.
Actually, it's precisely what happened. Except they could have let the white/black pseudo-dichotomy out of the headlines as the skin color is not important at all (although the inherent police racism would have to be dealt with in the news articles).
...there may have been a physical confrontation with the cop before the shooting...
...didn't want to present the "batshit crazy" idea that the cop may have been doing his job to some extent...
Again you are swallowing the cops version in one gulp. Not surprising given it's you. The use of "may have" implies there's any doubt it didn't happen by now. And the way the police dealt with the riots is quite far from "cop doing his job".
The failure of the media to provide the other side and to consider anything other than the story fed to them is a as much of a problem.
And then you are actually advocating the media should present the two sides even though one is clearly wrong after trying to pretend you agree with the point of this article. Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: journalistic due process?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
welcome to new media
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is Jay Rosen?
One-sided thinking is very popular in North Korea, Russia, and China. He'd do well there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
When it comes to the specific article and the specific problem, the material for making a proper assessment is available online. Now, you can still make the argument that plagiarism is not necessarily better defined than copyright violations. 10 words in a row matching plagiarism? Same relatively unique arguments, different wording plagiarism? etc.
But instead of making a kindergarten political "he said, she said" story out of it, the angle would probably have been better served by doing the digging and analyzing what the specific claims are and taking the debate about what the specific case of plagiarism is presumably about and hear the legal opinions on that ground instead of running with a worthless surface-divisive story where the deeper content might be pretty damning for one side...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
As I read the original source the point is that the digging into the content and educating people instead of just relying on talking heads using max 30 second political punch-lines that can make the case seem much more open than it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And don't the much criticized FISA hearings rely on this concept-- there's no need to hear the obvious lies of the accused terrorists, no need for "he said/she said?"
Certainly reporting should strive towards truth, especially statements that can be fact checked. But I worry that too much of an emphasis on the problems with presenting the arguments of either will lead to closed mindedness. The Church no doubt thought that there was no need to confuse the public with the obviously wrong ideas of Galileo, and others. Perhaps those things were okay for scholars to discuss, but the common man was not to be misled with obvious error.
I suspect the reaction will depend on how much you trust the gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If the accused here already had greater status and power than the police, then there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem to begin with. But abandoning balance when the accused are already low status will not redound to their benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well meaning censorship is still wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: journalistic due process?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A little experiment would be to take two groups of people with about equal competences and train them in an issue, one by politicians and lobbyists and the other by scientists.
My bet would be the politicians' people will be far better at arguing since they are served the lobbyist talking points, but the scientists' people would be far better able to point out the flaws in the arguments. Unfortunately pointing out flaws and being defensive will look weak as long as the barrage of arguments from the politicians keep coming. It is just better viewership from having politicians run the show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Larger problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: journalistic due process?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: journalistic due process?
The police released a video about a crime the kid committed, but on further review the policeman didn't seem to have that information at the time (Not to mention it has nothing to do with the actus reus and thus the question of if he did something culpable. It is a mens rea argument and thus about mitigating the punishment!). A private autopsy has been released on the bullet paterns in the victim. Several other small pieces of information will continue to emerge over time, but we are probably about to get past the interest in the media for ever smaller details about the specific case, which is the real problem.
People end up with an incomplete picture because the information about a crime is incomplete to begin with and as information surfaces, better and better indices and evidence will settle the picture of what really happened, but the media will loose interest when the overall picture gets settled since it isn't new news anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well meaning censorship is still wrong
"facts for and against something" makes no sense. Facts are stand alone.
Interpretation of facts within a point of view renders opinion. Sharing that opinion as though it were fact is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I should simplify:
* Great journalism: getting to the one, clear, factual side of every story.
* Acceptable journalism: presenting both sides in a truly meaningful fashion, and pressing both to go farther than the pre-recorded talking points.
* Poor journalism: Only presenting one side and not getting the facts correct.
* Fox journalism: Combine the worst parts of the previous two, and present both sides, but give one an advantage and one a disadvantage.
Just the simple fact that a story is even a little controversial means there is SOME sort of argument to back it up. It may not be popular, it may rely on cherry-picked statistics, and it may rely on emotional arguments instead of factual ones, but there's something there. Otherwise, there would be no controversy; everybody would just agree.
Now if I were to take 100 bat-shit crazy stances and never present the other (more rational) side to any of them, there's a good chance that some people could be convinced that I am telling the truth on some percentage of them.
That means the difference between great and poor journalism from above is simply how much you trust the news agency to present the right side of the story. It's not as simple as "give reasons." Both sides have reasons to believe they are correct.
To reiterate: I'm half-agreeing with Mike: good journalism is hard. If you do it right, it's worth it. I'm just taking the additional stance that few organizations have earned the sort of trust required to make it worth their time and effort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
It is Jay Rosens -- who, like the Harvard Law crowd, think they're gods -- that have to be watched 24x7.
Everything they say should be treated like a ticking anti-accuracy time bomb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modern Journalism...
The other 50% is re-writing the wire story, since almost nobody has foreign news bureaus any more. (Which also explains, for example, a news story about Cairo or Istanbul from a correspondent in London) You Google a current story and find 90% of the news articles from different newspapers use almost the same wording and details.
A really good example of this - Michael Brown's death. Nobody mentioned the cigar heist until the police news report (despite the apparent clamor for the video, according to the police chief). Then, in every news report for every paper or TV station, they repeat the chief's assertion that "the officer saw the cigars in his hand", they repeat the story "a box of cigars stolen". Virtually nobody says whether Brown had cigars after being shot, whether the quantity matched what was allegedly taken. These are kind of important details to the narrative, yet nobody seems to have asked the questions.
You'd think the very first day the police, if they were needing some shred of justification, would say "he had the same quantity of cigars as were stolen from the store". A guy with a hand full of cigars doesn't raise his hands to surrender, and it could be difficult to hit a police officer without crushing or dropping them; or did the officer see then "in his pocket"? Yet this cigar story first appears many days later.
These are the details that make things appear concocted. It's a simple amount of investigative questioning to answer these questions. Yet nobody does.
Close, but no cigar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The Jay Rosens of the Ivory Tower want to censor what you get. Ditto, Obama, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and Michael Moore.
He's wrong, all the time. It is as idiotic -- yes, idiotic -- as claiming "Citizens United" is the end of the USA. Well, if buying advertising can win elections, why has Bloomberg lost so much?
Facts and reality -- they're pesky.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: journalistic due process?
So the problem remains: If real reporting is about revealing the truth, would they fail in a rush to judgement?
It seems that the modern media is way more interested in the "this just in" mentality of taking any piece, tidbit, or even suggestion of news and running with it like it's the absolute truth, without knowing if it is or not.
The police here could be incredibly full of shit. The kid could have been trying to kill the cop. We don't know - and the media doesn't know either. If it bad reporting to say "we just don't know" and present both sides, even if one later turns out to be horseshit? Who are the media to judge that, really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well as long as we're at this...
I'm a non-believer. Every time I see someone arguing against abortion or against stem cell research, this is the exact same thought I have: why is this person given a chance to speak? Their argument is based on the - WRONG - assumption that "god" is anything more than a fairy tale with all the voracity of the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster. Why, oh why, is this cave dweller treated as though his opinion should carry any more weight than a random nut job plucked from the nearest insane asylum?
But then, if we treated religious crazies like the crazies they are, 90% of all the debates we routinely have simply wouldn't happen. A world devoid of religion is a world where almost everyone is in agreement, because their conclusions are all drawn from information, rather than third-hand 6,000 year old unverifiable horse crap.
And a world without debates makes for a world with some incredibly boring election cycles. Which would be good for the citizens, good for the country itself, and good for the world. But it's bad for the politicians.
And that's why, in 2014, we still have religion. At all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
often mandated by legal dept.
In 1991, Time Magazine made that calculated decision and lost. By publishing a no-holds-barred article about the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology -- despite the grave legal threats -- the media giant ended up spending millions of dollars defending itself against a lawsuit that was ultimately thrown out of court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thriving_Cult_of_Greed_and_Power
Despite 'technically' losing the suit, the cult considered this a victory. In its aftermath, the mainstream media went virtually silent on the Scientology cult for nearly two decades. When stories did finally return, such as the explosive St. Petersburg Times series, the cult was granted the final (unchallenged) word on every topic -- "he said/she said" ad nauseum.
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/
So while "he said/she said" is a cop-out from real journalism, at least it's better than the alternative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
Do you have any actual criticism of his point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you don't trust that news source to not give you bullshit, then there's no reason to pay any attention to them in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since you mentioned it - got any references to Obama, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, or Michael Moore demanding censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well meaning censorship is still wrong
Choosing not to broadcast stuff that isn't true isn't censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well as long as we're at this...
Sure, religion is the only thing anyone disagrees about, ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: journalistic due process?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: journalistic due process?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
What the F does he actually know, based on experience?
Answer: Zero. Nothing. Nada.
Would use go to a sex therapist who was a virgin and asexual? Someone who claimed to be an auto repair expert who'd never actually worked on a car?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well meaning censorship is still wrong
Like the fools who claim they have exclusive ownership of "scientific truth." When, in reality, science is always being challenged. Duh.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hillary and Warren -- keep claiming to have "evidence-based" thinking. Translation: "use my study, not others." LOL.
Michael Moore -- so wildly inaccurate, Pauline Kael of "The New Yorker" made a joke out of him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gad, what goofy gall. If Rosen wants to improve journalism, why doesn't go start a hard-news Web site? And show up "The Times?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
That's not criticizing the argument he made, that's attacking who made the argument, aka argumentum ad hominem. Do you have any criticism of the argument, as in something that doesn't depend on who's making it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
Would use go to a sex therapist who was a virgin and asexual?
Someone who claimed to be an auto repair expert who'd never actually worked on a car?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
But I can't resist the temptation to bite the apple nonetheless...
"Would use go to a sex therapist who was a virgin and asexual?"
Yes, if the therapist was good. You don't become a good sex therapist by having a lot of sex.
"Someone who claimed to be an auto repair expert who'd never actually worked on a car?"
Probably not, because I'd be playing the odds. However if I didn't know and let him fix the car anyway, then whether or not he fixed a car before mine is a moot point. All that matters is whether or not he properly fixed my car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2 people on either side of a "debate" with the journalist[scratch that out, the questionnaire] in the middle is all these people being equal human beings as in they all have the inalienable rights of the constitution and bill of rights, but they have zero equality when it comes to their opinions which the most ridiculous ones are getting a bit too old to have any opinion time on news media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
Would use go to a sex therapist who was a virgin and asexual?
Someone who claimed to be an auto repair expert who'd never actually worked on a car?
I think I'll just take that as "no, I don't have any legitimate counterpoint".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
We, with free will, our decisions are made by us. Psuedo-intellectuals like Rosen are of no concern to us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
Like today's cars. So complex, you have 5+ years of experience and $20,000 of tools to fix many problems. Asking someone without experience to fix a car today would be like asking a monkey to do nuclear physics.
Only some naive college student would think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
The irony is strong with this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
It's rare to see someone miss a point so thoroughly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Jay Rosen?
And what journalism experience do you have that would qualify you to criticize a journalism professor?
If none, then, according to your own argument, you should shut up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]