It
may not be news to others, but I'm rather amazed by the number of
blogs passing themselves off as 'news' these days.
These aren't op-ed pieces, or letters to the editor pieces or even plainly marked as 'blogs', the content of which may or may not have something to do with some objective reality or facts. No, these are passed off as news items as if they were properly researched, vetted, edited, reviewed and then disseminated to the public for their intellectual enlightenment. Unbiased reporting, they're not. Opinion, they are.
Everyone does it, from ABCNews.com (the distinction apparently being a tiny, almost imperceptible change in an icon that determines which are blogs and which are 'news stories' despite the fact these icons don't turn up in news feeds and blogs receive the same headline billing as regular news articles) to USNews and World Report (where, apparently, they pay individuals with biases deep enough to float aircraft carriers to pontificate about whatever strikes their fancy at the moment - a good living for them, but awful reporting for the organization and a huge disservice to the readers).
Now, I'm NOT against blogging. I'd be some gigantic, free-wheeling hypocrite if I said blogs are bad, considering this is a blog. What I'm arguing against is passing off blogs as news. Yes, they often contain some relevant information, but they don't necessarily qualify as 'news'.
What is 'news'?
Good question. To me, 'news' is unbiased reporting of the facts. It presents who, what, where when and how. It presents why if known. It does not present speculation, opinion, conjecture, innuendo, half-truths or other qualifiers to shade the story one way or another unless they have been expressed by an individual who is part of the story and they are RELEVANT to the story. There is a responsibility in reporting the news that too many people are abdicating in the face of a readily available blog audience. That responsibility is to present the facts so that the people can make up their minds about a story if they so choose. It is a responsibility to not shade a story with words or descriptions that may interfere with the creation of an opinion. If you think you are above being influenced by mere words, you are probably lying dead on a slab somewhere.
The following is the leading paragraph from an AP story appearing on MSNBC.com from the AP dated 10/31/08 by Mark Stahl:
"In a bold move brimming with confidence, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign on Friday into two once reliably Republican states and further bedeviled rival John McCain by placing a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee's home state of Arizona."
This is not a terribly accurate or unbiased piece, though it does contain information. Remember who, what, when, where, how and maybe, why.
Here's how another agency can report it, biased in the other direction:
In a sneaky and underhanded move, Obama invaded traditionally Republican grounds on Friday when he deliberately began running ads promoting the liberal agenda in two states. He further added insult to injury when he began running ads in war hero, POW and candidate for President of the United States, Senator John McCain's home state of Arizona.
Here it is again, without any bias:
On Friday Senator Barack Obama began running ads in North Dakota and Georgia, two traditionally Republican states, in an apparent attempt to secure more Democratic votes. With Senator McCain's ads already running in Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, on Friday Senator Obama also began running an ad in Senator McCain's home state of Arizona.
Note the differences: Always referring to both individuals by title and similar name. No buzz phrases like "brimming with confidence" or "bedevil". It balances out references to democrats and republicans. It also states the facts without coloring them, doesn't prescribe any specific motivations, and is neutral in tone and information.
So where's the problem? The above article was a NEWS PIECE, not a blog. It was presented as a straight AP-generated story on MSNBC.com. But it's obviously biased toward Senator Obama, painting a very defensive and moderately negative picture of Senator McCain. I've read other stories which do the opposite. Fox news came out foaming at the mouth with the story of a 'McCain volunteer' brutally attacked by an Obama supporter during a robbery who then had a "B" carved into her cheek when the robber discovered she was a McCain supporter. Fox News never bothered checking the facts of the story, nor did they report that the police suspected the story was phony from the start (a day later the police's suspicions were confirmed and the young woman is being treated for mental instability). For twenty four hours, conservative pundits howled and bayed like bloodhounds on a trail, only to find they'd treed a non-existent coon. Few bothered to check the facts and almost none of them reported those facts dispassionately.
So, again, what's the problem with blogs?
The problem lies with their impact on the reporter's objectivity. Reporters have a ready audience with their blogs, and another with their news readers, but they are blurring the line between objective reporting and subjective bias, allowing the latter to invade the former. These news organizations encourage this form of mental masturbation, allowing the reporter free reign to flaunt their opinions without fear of retribution and with no journalistic responsibility, then fail to live up to their responsibilities by properly editing the reporter's words before they're posted or printed. Worse, they add these op-ed pieces to the straight news lines, with almost no regard for the fact they're not news but opinions, and fail to label them appropriately.
The upshot is that news today seems to consists of 20% fact and 80% opinion.
The solution is relatively simple: Make reporters REPORT the news. If they want to blog, let them do it on their own time, on their own dime and to whatever audience they attract. Do NOT let them blog within the news organization itself, never as a 'major story', never as a headline except inside the op-ed section where the opinions of everyone, reporter, editor, reader, et al. can be considered equally. The editors must regain a sense of journalistic integrity, reporting facts as opposed to conjecture, innuendo, supposition or even a 'best guess'. None of those are news and none of those belong in a news story if it's not a quote from a relevant source.
Another factor in this race for blogging as news is advertiser dollars. People like sensationalism. People like gossip. Shows like the Professional Stalkers Anonymous (TMZ) and other such offerings prove people don't generally care about whether the story is factual as long as it SOUNDS juicy. And to a certain extent, I understand the desire to read more than dry facts. But the very use of adjectives that 'juice up' a story colors it one way or another. This causes bias, even controversy. And by doing so, more readers are attracted, thus drawing the attention of advertiser dollars who then pay a lot to make sure everyone who reads or hears or sees that article is exposed to their product of the moment. There's too much rush for dollars and not enough objectivity in the manner in which the rushing is encouraged. The fact the story may or may not be accurate and is most certainly not objective are seemingly minor issues.
We live in a time of emerging technologies, when communication has never been easier or reached such a wide audience. And we communicate as we have done in the past: with little or no regard for the impact our words may have on others. A reporter's responsibility is to inform, not persuade. But with the advent of the Internet, and the lack of etiquette associated with it, we have become a world of opinions wherein any idiotic point of view is held with the same reverence and regard as the most brilliant of our age. We, as individuals, certainly have the right to express ourselves freely. But reporters do not when they are reporting the news. Their responsibility is to inform, not persuade. (Yes, I'm repeating myself - deliberately).
It's time we begin to impose some rules on our new-toy method of talking to the world. Blogs should be clearly and obviously labeled as blogs. They should NEVER appear in a news headline without the word "OPINION:" prefacing the title. People must be allowed to express themselves, but reporters must be required to dispassionately tell the whole story as it becomes available or mark their words as the opinions they delineate. When in the pursuit of the Almighty Advertising Dollar, reporters forget that their responsibility is to give us the information we need to create our own opinions, and instead try to shape our opinions, nations and generations suffer.
These aren't op-ed pieces, or letters to the editor pieces or even plainly marked as 'blogs', the content of which may or may not have something to do with some objective reality or facts. No, these are passed off as news items as if they were properly researched, vetted, edited, reviewed and then disseminated to the public for their intellectual enlightenment. Unbiased reporting, they're not. Opinion, they are.
Everyone does it, from ABCNews.com (the distinction apparently being a tiny, almost imperceptible change in an icon that determines which are blogs and which are 'news stories' despite the fact these icons don't turn up in news feeds and blogs receive the same headline billing as regular news articles) to USNews and World Report (where, apparently, they pay individuals with biases deep enough to float aircraft carriers to pontificate about whatever strikes their fancy at the moment - a good living for them, but awful reporting for the organization and a huge disservice to the readers).
Now, I'm NOT against blogging. I'd be some gigantic, free-wheeling hypocrite if I said blogs are bad, considering this is a blog. What I'm arguing against is passing off blogs as news. Yes, they often contain some relevant information, but they don't necessarily qualify as 'news'.
What is 'news'?
Good question. To me, 'news' is unbiased reporting of the facts. It presents who, what, where when and how. It presents why if known. It does not present speculation, opinion, conjecture, innuendo, half-truths or other qualifiers to shade the story one way or another unless they have been expressed by an individual who is part of the story and they are RELEVANT to the story. There is a responsibility in reporting the news that too many people are abdicating in the face of a readily available blog audience. That responsibility is to present the facts so that the people can make up their minds about a story if they so choose. It is a responsibility to not shade a story with words or descriptions that may interfere with the creation of an opinion. If you think you are above being influenced by mere words, you are probably lying dead on a slab somewhere.
The following is the leading paragraph from an AP story appearing on MSNBC.com from the AP dated 10/31/08 by Mark Stahl:
"In a bold move brimming with confidence, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign on Friday into two once reliably Republican states and further bedeviled rival John McCain by placing a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee's home state of Arizona."
This is not a terribly accurate or unbiased piece, though it does contain information. Remember who, what, when, where, how and maybe, why.
Here's how another agency can report it, biased in the other direction:
In a sneaky and underhanded move, Obama invaded traditionally Republican grounds on Friday when he deliberately began running ads promoting the liberal agenda in two states. He further added insult to injury when he began running ads in war hero, POW and candidate for President of the United States, Senator John McCain's home state of Arizona.
Here it is again, without any bias:
On Friday Senator Barack Obama began running ads in North Dakota and Georgia, two traditionally Republican states, in an apparent attempt to secure more Democratic votes. With Senator McCain's ads already running in Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, on Friday Senator Obama also began running an ad in Senator McCain's home state of Arizona.
Note the differences: Always referring to both individuals by title and similar name. No buzz phrases like "brimming with confidence" or "bedevil". It balances out references to democrats and republicans. It also states the facts without coloring them, doesn't prescribe any specific motivations, and is neutral in tone and information.
So where's the problem? The above article was a NEWS PIECE, not a blog. It was presented as a straight AP-generated story on MSNBC.com. But it's obviously biased toward Senator Obama, painting a very defensive and moderately negative picture of Senator McCain. I've read other stories which do the opposite. Fox news came out foaming at the mouth with the story of a 'McCain volunteer' brutally attacked by an Obama supporter during a robbery who then had a "B" carved into her cheek when the robber discovered she was a McCain supporter. Fox News never bothered checking the facts of the story, nor did they report that the police suspected the story was phony from the start (a day later the police's suspicions were confirmed and the young woman is being treated for mental instability). For twenty four hours, conservative pundits howled and bayed like bloodhounds on a trail, only to find they'd treed a non-existent coon. Few bothered to check the facts and almost none of them reported those facts dispassionately.
So, again, what's the problem with blogs?
The problem lies with their impact on the reporter's objectivity. Reporters have a ready audience with their blogs, and another with their news readers, but they are blurring the line between objective reporting and subjective bias, allowing the latter to invade the former. These news organizations encourage this form of mental masturbation, allowing the reporter free reign to flaunt their opinions without fear of retribution and with no journalistic responsibility, then fail to live up to their responsibilities by properly editing the reporter's words before they're posted or printed. Worse, they add these op-ed pieces to the straight news lines, with almost no regard for the fact they're not news but opinions, and fail to label them appropriately.
The upshot is that news today seems to consists of 20% fact and 80% opinion.
The solution is relatively simple: Make reporters REPORT the news. If they want to blog, let them do it on their own time, on their own dime and to whatever audience they attract. Do NOT let them blog within the news organization itself, never as a 'major story', never as a headline except inside the op-ed section where the opinions of everyone, reporter, editor, reader, et al. can be considered equally. The editors must regain a sense of journalistic integrity, reporting facts as opposed to conjecture, innuendo, supposition or even a 'best guess'. None of those are news and none of those belong in a news story if it's not a quote from a relevant source.
Another factor in this race for blogging as news is advertiser dollars. People like sensationalism. People like gossip. Shows like the Professional Stalkers Anonymous (TMZ) and other such offerings prove people don't generally care about whether the story is factual as long as it SOUNDS juicy. And to a certain extent, I understand the desire to read more than dry facts. But the very use of adjectives that 'juice up' a story colors it one way or another. This causes bias, even controversy. And by doing so, more readers are attracted, thus drawing the attention of advertiser dollars who then pay a lot to make sure everyone who reads or hears or sees that article is exposed to their product of the moment. There's too much rush for dollars and not enough objectivity in the manner in which the rushing is encouraged. The fact the story may or may not be accurate and is most certainly not objective are seemingly minor issues.
We live in a time of emerging technologies, when communication has never been easier or reached such a wide audience. And we communicate as we have done in the past: with little or no regard for the impact our words may have on others. A reporter's responsibility is to inform, not persuade. But with the advent of the Internet, and the lack of etiquette associated with it, we have become a world of opinions wherein any idiotic point of view is held with the same reverence and regard as the most brilliant of our age. We, as individuals, certainly have the right to express ourselves freely. But reporters do not when they are reporting the news. Their responsibility is to inform, not persuade. (Yes, I'm repeating myself - deliberately).
It's time we begin to impose some rules on our new-toy method of talking to the world. Blogs should be clearly and obviously labeled as blogs. They should NEVER appear in a news headline without the word "OPINION:" prefacing the title. People must be allowed to express themselves, but reporters must be required to dispassionately tell the whole story as it becomes available or mark their words as the opinions they delineate. When in the pursuit of the Almighty Advertising Dollar, reporters forget that their responsibility is to give us the information we need to create our own opinions, and instead try to shape our opinions, nations and generations suffer.
