For the purpose of discussion, let’s agree that P. T. Barnum was right: “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
Let’s imagine that name recognition is more important than a good name. Put another way, Oscar Wilde said, “There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
We are pleasingly human. We like to be in the know, especially if it is on the down low. We feel special if we are privy to a secret. We like to rub shoulders with those in the know. Therefore, if we really want to find the bias in reporting, it is as much how we write about a subject as it is what subjects we choose to write about.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that there is a stronger correlation between the amount of coverage received and a president’s approval rating than there is between the ratings and anything presidents accomplish while in office. Let us agree that the amount of coverage of Trump, in or out of office, was greater than the amount of coverage of Biden in office. May we conclude there is a relationship between skimpy coverage and the Gallup Poll finding, “Joe Biden averaged 42.2% job approval during his four years as president, the second lowest in Gallup polling history.”
If all, or any of the above, were true, then let’s consider news coverage as one variable that landed us in the ridiculous position in which we find ourselves. If the media helped us into our current political and economic danger, it might be good to know how we, the purveyors of information, decide what to cover, how we decide what to notice and what to ignore.
The rules
Journalism is a profession. In any profession there are rules and ethical restraints that guide the practitioners. Journalists perform a public service by presenting the truth. Journalism is called the Fourth Estate in recognition that it has power—the power to influence. So, the rules and constraints matter.
It is the obligation of the media to inform the public because the public has a right to know. News reporters and their editors sort through and report what is newsworthy. Newsworthiness is defined by timeliness, proximity, uniqueness, and prominence. If it has impact, conflict, and if it bleeds, it leads.
The perks and the problems
Journalists know more than others. Is it because they are smarter? Nope, it is because of the job title. People tell us stuff every day. Why? Hard to say. Maybe to prime the pump and learn something from us. Maybe to sell themselves—you know, in case there is no such thing as bad publicity. Probably in a sincere effort to get the word out.
The next best thing to knowing stuff is having access to those who do. So don’t put out the prominent. That is the first of many conundrums. How do you tell truth to power or tell the truth about the powerful and still retain access?
Another conundrum: We cannot libel. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, so we need only tell the truth. Now we see the evil of suggesting that truth is debatable or that there are alternate facts. Uprooting truth for personal gain happened before our eyes. It destroyed one of the pillars of our political and legal edifice.
Without fear or favor
There are a lot of smart people around us. According to a study by WalletHub, Massachusetts has the highest percentage of adults with bachelor’s degrees and graduate or professional degrees, making it the most educated state in the U.S. Intelligence is a tool that can be used in many ways.
Let’s call the ones who use intellect to position themselves for personal gain the “positioners.” They have a talent for capturing headlines by reducing complex matters to monosyllabic words gathered into simple sentences. Media reports what these people say because it is easy, it is catchy, and it appears to be informative. “Stop the Steal.” “It’s not fair.”
What’s wrong with that? Two things: It hides the positioners’ motives, and it stifles discussion. The wordsmith positions himself as the only one with sincere commitment, the only one who did their homework, the only one telling the truth. Those who take an opposing position are labeled enemies of decency, fairness, or progress. Those who seek to get their opinion aired and considered are spreading misinformation. That makes debate awkward if not dangerous.
The positioners are interested in winning, not problem solving. They are interested in “divide and conquer,” not unite and progress. Their only sincere commitment is to their own power—never resolution of any issue. They don’t care: If the measure under consideration passes, they are heroes and take a bow; if it fails, they are victims of the thoughtless, selfish enemies out to thwart them.
So, what do we journalists do? Do we report what they say or only what they do? Do we report what they say and dispute it, or does that only heighten their name recognition? Does discussing and analyzing their words, actions, methods, and motives only make them more important? Have we in fact reshaped the very definitions of what is important, who is important and why?
If there is no such thing as bad publicity, are we knowingly promoting the self-promoter? Or do we ignore the headline grabber, and does that leave the public ill informed?
Another profession
Or do we follow the advice of one of the first prominent American psychologists, William James, “No more fiendish punishment could be devised than that one should be turned loose in society and remain absolutely unnoticed by all the members thereof.”
Where would we be, where would the United States of America be right now, if we had ignored him?
