If You're A Journalist Who Thinks That Pointing Out Lies Shows Bias, You're Not A Journalist
from the you're-a-pr-person dept
For years, we've pointed out the ridiculousness of "the view from nowhere" reporting (a phrase coined by journalism professor Jay Rosen). This is the ridiculous belief that being an "objective" journalist means never challenging what someone says to you, but rather just showing "both sides of the story" and not "taking" any side. But, that's ridiculous. If someone claims that the earth is flat, and you do a story showing the person claiming that, alongside someone else saying it's not, but never point out that the person saying the earth is flat is crazy, then you're not doing your job as a journalist. A journalist should be focusing on getting to the truth, and that means calling bullshit when warranted.This issue has come up again this week, thanks to NBC talking head Matt Lauer's inability to challenge Donald Trump's blatantly false statement that he was against the war in Iraq. Trump has been saying this throughout the campaign, and it's simply not true. What's more, plenty of journalists have pointed out that it's not true, and any journalist interviewing the candidate, as Matt Lauer did, should have known that and should have pushed back. But Lauer did not, leading to widespread criticism.
What's perhaps even more astounding, however, is that some TV journalists jumped in to defend Lauer, insisting that doing actual fact checking on lies is showing bias:
If that's what they think, then they should all find new jobs. Because they're not journalists. The finding of truth is important, and calling out a candidate (or others in power) for false statements when they make them is part of that important role. It's not "biased" to seek the truth. It's not "biased" to call a false statement a false statement. It's the job of a journalist.Political talk-show host Chris Matthews, for example, said after the event that if Lauer had called Trump out for lying, that would be equivalent to expressing an opinion, and moderators are supposed to be neutral.
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who is going to be moderating one of the debates between Trump and Clinton, said something similar in an interview. Wallace said it’s not his job to question the factual accuracy of a candidate’s statement during such an event.
“I do not believe it’s my job to be a truth squad,” Wallace said. “It’s up to the other person to catch them on that.”
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: bias, chris matthews, chris wallace, donald trump, fact checking, facts, he said, journalism, matt lauer, objectivity, reporting, she said, truth
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wait, I'm confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, I'm confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, I'm confused
In reality, 'a view from nowhere' reporting spins platform and social engineering into otherwise-unbiased reporting, so that you end up where we are now, MSNBC vs FOX. We laugh about it, we joke about it, but in reality, it's turned almost all 'sources of news' into picking the 'more accountable National Enquirer' to half-way listen to.
Now, for Mesnick, I ask: Do you see writers for the National Enquirer as 'reporters'? If not, then why do you promote other news writers to become such 'ambulance chasing trolls'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already did, now Wallace is working for Fox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt is "BIASED"...
BIASED towards the truth
BIASED towards justice
BIASED towards technology
BIASED towards a particular viewpoint
BIASED towards a modicum of brevity
BIASED away from an echo chamber
BIAS is inevitable in journalism, because someone has to decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data (did everyone *really* want to sit through days and days of Kim Dotcom's appeal hearing in NZ?), and what facts to check...
Not that the "reporters" involved here haven't earned the title "shill" or "papparazzi"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is "BIASED"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt is "BIASED"...
The psychological test you finally graduated it.
Me too.. two years back, anyway
There's no such thing as a Journalist, screw a stupid fucking journalist, who cares what you call them it's a game they invented to spin your wheels and paint the ponies while you turn fucking grey. Stay tuned kiddies now, Up next, a fresh round of WORD NAZI..
There is only one TRUTH
truth doesn't have a requirement to come from a journalist
You can have a WHOLE nation who is wrong when compared to one truth. The amount of fucking retarded people who believe Journalist speak truth is irrelevant. There's still just one truth, I don't give a fuck if it's an army that says it's a lie.
My point is quit worrying about the Word "Journalist" fuck a journalist. Consenting and Complying like Diane Feinstein (unregistered Foreign Agent of ISRAEL) suggests for Journalist should dis-qualify your retarded degree title.
example: Jo Smith - Executive Producer
changes to
Jo Smith - Retarded Jackass
Stay tuned next week for another game of SPELLING NAZI..
(sarc bro not an attack)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you think that's bad...
BTW, I'm not saying all those right of center are nutjobs, just that the CBC will select one who is a nutjob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you think that's bad...
Politicians can't understand people disagree. They think they failed to explain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you think that's bad...
Political believers are like religious believers, their beliefs are correct, and anybody who disagrees with them is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why jump on Lauer?
There's no question that Lauer did a terrible job, but I don't know how this was a surprise to anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why jump on Lauer?
2. Are you really suggesting that people should only criticize things that are surprising? It's not surprising when my dog barks at the mailman, but I still tell her to cut it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why jump on Lauer?
2) No, my point is that all media coverage is failing in the same way Lauer did, and I don't quite understand why so many people are jumping on him and letting so many others slide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why jump on Lauer?
Trump is an outsider and a psuedo conservative so they are attacking him like a pack of rabid dogs. In fact, even he couldn't afford the kind of publicity they are giving him. Hillary is spending a fortune on attack ads and he is getting all kinds of free publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MoneyIsMadeNOTFactCheckingLive
Besides, as a media giant, you want more eyeballs. That means after show hosts on all the cable 'news' outlets get something more to talk about. The daytime 'hosts' like Matt have more to talk about during their shows.
It's profitable NOT to do journalism in this day and age.
Money is made through click-bait talking points created after the event and the judge by committee panels pushing their own talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same stanrd for thise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same stanrd for thise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same stanrd for thise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Strawman.
This was not a debate.
Which Lauer also failed to do.
Who needs an earpiece when you can parrot whatever talking point you heard on Fox News this morning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there are so many lies that calling them out would prevent the debate from occurring, then there wasn't a debate in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree and disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agree and disagree
Second: Yes, it's the other candidate's job to call BS...but it's the other candidate's job to call BS *even if it's not BS*.
Candidates are biased. They're supposed to be. When one of them says A and the other one says not-A, you can't just assume that the person who "called BS" is telling the truth. There needs to be an impartial third party who will assert the truth or falsehood of a statement. You can't, and shouldn't, just trust one candidate over the other because they say so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agree and disagree
This was an interview, not a debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Agree and disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Agree and disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Agree and disagree
Masnick light-bulbed this like that was his point all along, but he wasn't only talking about Lauer's show in the article. He brought up Matthews' and Wallace's comments regarding the proper role of a moderator at a debate, to which Masnick responded:
"If that's what they think, then they should all find new jobs. Because they're not journalists."
Therefore, it's perfectly appropriate to address the larger point of what a moderator should and shouldn't be doing at debates even if this most recent show with Lauer wasn't a debate. And David was absolutely right. The role of the moderator is to ask the questions and play referee, keeping each candidate to their allotted time, etc. Not to fact-check the answers and call out lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Agree and disagree
In an interview, I would not only expect but demand that the journalist call out those being questioned on the truthfulness of their statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, but what if they *lie*, Chris?
There was a debate in '04 where John Kerry pointed out (accurately) that George Bush had said he didn't think about Bin Laden that often. Bush got a look of incredulity on his face and claimed never to have said it. Even though Kerry was telling the truth and Bush was lying, it looked to the audience as if the opposite had happened.
Each candidate is biased on his or her own behalf. That's the candidate's job. The moderator's job is to be impartial.
The audience shouldn't trust either candidate; the audience needs a neutral third party who *is* trustworthy.
Which -- snark about Fox News aside -- is Chris Wallace's job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then it's the job of the other journalists after the debate to highlight the lies and provide the truth.
The moderator is just the moderator, not a journalist. Even if he/she is a journalist in their day job, when they're acting as a moderator, they're not journalists. They are two entirely different jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Debates?
er emmmm.. That might not be such a bad idea.. Gong the candidate who speaks too much Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We checked and he was telling the Truth"
"We checked and he was making a False Statement" versus "We checked and he was Lying."
Did somebody remove the word Liar from the dictionary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Did somebody remove the word Liar..."
- http://imgur.com/gallery/8mHzwJW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And for good measure: Trump exposes Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whenever these same journalists get some no-name nobody with similarly kooky ideas and provocative behavior as Trump, you can bet that they will tear them to shreads in an interview. Just look at the recent Nightline hitpiece on Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos that was an angry name-calling shoutdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow you so have him now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh so TRUMP lied
She never said that before and has in fact given testimony about not having a separate system for classified systems.
Or do only lies by the candidate for one particular party count.
Which is good for the democrats I suppose because Hillary seems incapable of telling the truth AT ALL.
The other interesting thing is that all the shit Hillary says doesn't disqualify her from being president, but not knowing where Aleppo was Disqualifies Gary Johnson??!!!!
Double and triple standards are what is harming journalism, not not calling out lies.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh so TRUMP lied
Hillary had classified material on her private server. That is a fact.
However, that is not a sign that she haven't used a more appropriate channel for better marked classified material.
It doesn't mean that she isn't culpable. It just means that some people didn't hear the "... Some are good people" in Trumps famous quote.
Johnson is not too well versed in laenderkunde questions. That media are "disqualifying" him as president for such a small detail is not fair to the less biased media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh so TRUMP lied
I'm really not a fan of Trump, he's far from a Republican, but then again there's just so many RINO's in office already. He's going to say crazy things because it gets his name everywhere. Doesn't matter if it's negative. He's no politician where you say a whole lot of nothing. That at least I find refreshing. As usual, being in CA, I didn't vote for Trump and pick him as the Republican choice. Still, just about anyone is better the Clinton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what they're trained to do in j-school
Fairness means reporting “both sides” of a story even when there are 3 or 4 sides, or when it’s obvious who is lying and who isn’t.
If journalists were interested in truth, they wouldn’t pretend to be impartial (they’re human, of course they have opinions of their own). Instead they’d openly admit their viewpoint and let the reader judge their arguments.
There are still countless newspapers in the US with “Republican” or “Democrat” in their title. I suspect the relatively high esteem which journalists enjoy is a legacy from the era when these newspapers were founded.
Before the rise of “professional” journalism in the middle of the 20th century, truth was assumed to exist (even if it was difficult to find), and publishers were proud to announce their political allegiance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what they're trained to do in j-school
He argued that it is not proper for a reporter to say that someone "lied" (using that exact word), as it makes an assumption about motive, and that is more appropriately the role of the editorial page.
HOWEVER (and this is a crucial distinction that the "gotta show both sides equally" crowd has missed), this journalist was very clear that it is his job to point out when someone says something untrue. That's not stating an opinion; that's correcting something that is demonstrably false.
How to do this? A reporter can make any number of factual statements: "X said something untrue", or "X is incorrect", or "X is contradicting something he himself said 10 minutes ago". But to say "X is a liar" moves from fact to assumption, as there's always the alternative explanation that X is simply mistaken, or that X is delusional and genuinely believes what he's saying. (Even though, let's face it, we all know that X is a liar.)
It's splitting hairs, I know, but he made an interesting argument.
...
Of course, all this only works if the voting public actually thinks truth matters. And I have my doubts about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalism is dead
For the Fourth Estate to properly function, journalists have to trust their readers. If they don't trust their readers, they need to find another line of work, because they then become just another shrill shreaking opinion adding to the din.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidenti al-candidate.html
Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
Jim Rutenberg
MEDIATOR AUG. 7, 2016
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalism is dead
From the article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalism is dead
"It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable."
Precisely. Since reporting on truth is what is lacking in journalism today, that is why journalism is dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you deal with moderator bias?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmKpA30Xeo
But it turns out Mitt Romney was actually correct, because the the UN Ambassador was actually brought out to the Sunday talk shows and DID blame the attack on an internet video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cetu6SMiZsY
And this story continued where the administration ultimately blamed the Benghazi attacks on an internet video for the next 2 weeks, and not that it was a coordinated terror attack. How do we deal with this bias? The job of the moderator is NOT to "fact check" or "take sides" on a debate. It is to get the opinions of the candidates. If one side or another has a problem with the candidate's response to a question, then the candidates can rebut it. If the moderator has a problem with a candidate's response, they can take issue with it afterwards. But definitely no "fact checking" during the debate, no matter how obvious you think it should be. Let the debaters debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you deal with moderator bias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is one plus side though, the less time they spend going back and forth over what is correct or incorrect, the more chances he gives people like Trump to stick a foot in their mouths again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the word "complicit" comes to mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the word "complicit" comes to mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are wrong!
Journalism also includes analysis.
P.S. That the earth is not flat is fact. A journalist reporting on, say, the Moon orbiting the Earth, can if they like include someone claiming that the earth is flat. They should also point out that person is wrong. That is not a matter of opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are wrong!
Christian Amanpour is a real Journalist who only injects personal opinion when asked. Don Lemon says he is a news reporter but is biased, and his presentation of facts are skewed to his personal beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except, y'know, in the media, the next day. Which is what she did and what we're talking about.
I'm not even a fan of Clinton. But it's pretty obvious why the "it's her job to point out falsehoods, not Lauer's" argument is flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalist or Moderator?
> they're not journalists.
But when they're moderating a debate, they're not acting as journalists. Wallace is right-- a debate moderator's job is not to be a truth squad. The job of the moderator is to ask the questions and make sure the candidates follow the rules--, i.e., stick to the time allotted, respond only when allowed, etc.
Wallace is also right when he said that it's each candidate's job to expose their opponent's lies, not the moderator's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your frustration is valid and prob. stems from the lack of skill amongg journalists in showing it. But your remedy is not one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The View from Nowhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because they're not journalists
Hmmm. Lets see. They sling deception provided by government minions. They use advanced psychological techniques to maximize retention of those deceptions in the public conciousness.
If only we had a word for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like many professions, a simple descriptor like journalism or journalist is a high-level description of the types of task one may accomplish.
Like saying someone works in medicine - they could be a medical doctor, a surgeon, a specialist (brain surgeon, oncologist), a nurse, a chemist (pharmicist), and so on.
Therefore journalist covers several sub-type areas, who each have their function. And of course, the same person can be performing different aspects, or different roles (wearing different hats) depending on the circumstances (or their job at that particular point in time).
To me, the basic different roles covered under journalism are:
1) reporting (e.g. news reporter);
2) Investigative reporting;
3) Analyst.
== Reporter ==
A reporter is exactly that. They are reporting what is happening, the facts. They report what the police said, or witnesses, or what they saw, he said-she said, and so on.
This is what I expect from the nightly 6pm news shows. A recounting of the facts. I would not expect any personal opinions or analysis of what's going on.
== Investigative Reporter ==
This is where we get into someone who 'chases' a particular in-depth story. They interview many people over a period of time, building up a major report. These are the types of situations where I'd expect fact checking, comparisons, calling people out on lies and so on. The ones getting in people's faces to find out the 'truth'.
== Analyst ==
Like the title says, analyse intelligence. Where in this case it's getting the reports from reporters, and building up a bigger picture, tasking investigative reporters to root around for them and get them information. A "bigger picture" sort of person.
Different types of businesses undertake the different types of journalism. The nightly news is mostly just 'reporting'. The current/breaking news in newspapers also.
The current affairs businesses (60 minutes, Foreign Correspondent, time magazine, wired, TechDirt, all these types of businesses) are of the investigative reporting/Analyst type businesses. Expose's, and so on.
All of the above ARE journalism, they are just different aspects of it.
And the same person on different days could be undertaking different aspects. Someone could be known as a hard-hitting investigative reporter, but gets hired by a local TV station freelance to quickly grab a news report of a local event for that night's nightly news.
Or they could be doing a completely different job. Say, as a moderator at a debate.
In general, a moderator at a debate is just a referee of the debate, to make sure the debaters stick to their time limits, to pass the questions around, and so on. It is not a moderators job, unless it has been explicitly listed as their job, to analyse, report on, the statements made by the debaters. They are not performing journalism, they are performing debate moderation, which is a different job.
Hiring a journalist to be a moderator at a debate is no different to hiring anyone else famous, a movie star, a sports star, local celebrity or what have you. The purpose is to make it look good by having someone famous in the mix. And for something like a debate, it just looks better if that famous person is a journalist or similar rather than a front-rower. It's a publicity stunt.
If you wanted journalism, analytical/investigative-type journalism, you wouldn't hold a debate. You'd hold a series of interviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone who is attacking the Second Amendment at this point in history isn't a journalist.
So you can call yourself a Journalist all you want, but we know exactly what you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderate vs Interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]