Krugman speculates that the McCain campaign thinks that they can get away with lying because the press won't hold them accountable:
"Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.
They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”"
Please read the piece in its entirety, aswell as the assigned essays by Brent Cunningham and Doug McGill, and then turn to one (or more) of the media outlets you have been tracking and consider the following questions:(You don't have to answer all of these questions, but please offer a few paragraphs of your thoughts, and come to class prepared to discuss these issues. )
Is Krugman correct in his claim that Palin lied about her position on the Bridge to Nowhere, and that the McCain campaign lied about Obama's position on sex education for kindergarteners? Where can you find evidence to support or refute his claim? (If you can find evidence to support or refute Krugman's claims, please link to them in your response.)
How did the media outlet you are covering report these claims? Do you find examples of the kind of "balancing" that Krugman refers to?
Can you find examples where the Obama campaign has lied? If so, how have the media handled these cases?
What explanations do Cunningham and McGill offer for why it is difficult for journalists to say explicitly when someone is lying? What solutions do they offer?
3 comments:
By my Google-aided research, Krugman has given accurate information in his two examples of the McCain/Palin campaign's recent lies. I was able to find main stream news stories that laid out clear explanations of the false claims. For example, here is a piece from CNN.com about the Bridge, and an article from NYTimes.com on the Sex Ed for Kindergartners ad .
Both of these examples were published last week, though Reuters started piecing together facts on the Bridge story back on September 1st. To their credit, the media made quicker work of the Sex Ed ad, as it only began airing last Tuesday.
When it comes to these specific topics, I have not noticed much of the false even-handedness that Krugman describes in the print/online media I have been monitoring. When watching cable news, I have observed that as Palin continues to use her "Thanks, but no thanks" line in stump speeches, the well-established facts of the situation are rarely mentioned, unless someone from the Obama camp is on air to bring them up. Effectively, this brings about the same result.
If you have not seen it yet, Politifact.com seems to be attempt to put the fact checking back into journalism. Brought to you by the St. Petersburg Times (FL) and Congressional Quarterly, the About Politifact page describes it this way:
Each election year we hear this lament from our readers suffering the barrage of campaign rhetoric: “just gimme the truth.”
That’s the mission of PolitiFact. The St. Petersburg Times of Florida and Congressional Quarterly of Washington, D.C. – two of America’s most trusted, independent newsrooms – have created the site to help voters separate fact from falsehood in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Journalists and researchers from the Times and CQ will fact-check the accuracy of speeches, TV ads, interviews and other campaign communications. We’ll publish new findings every day on PolitiFact.com, and list our sources for all to see.
So, on one hand - what a great service. On the other hand, why on earth does that warrant its own website? What is happening on the other pages of TampaBay.com?
(Stacey, I wasn't aware of Politifact.com. Thanks for pointing it out.)
I also turned to "the Google" for my first searches on "bridge to nowhere." Krugman is certainly correct is his assertion that "anybody with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute." His accusations are well supported in two sites I am watching, Democracy Now! (along with many other Palin inaccuracies) and US News and World Report. Also, the history of the bridge project is well documented at its Wiki site (which I found cited in several news stories): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge which has many citations documenting the topic and Palin's position(s) and which support Krugman's speculations. There are also numerous stories from previous months and years about the bridge and about the issue of pork-barrel projects and Palin's acceptance then rejection of them.
Boston Herald-http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116208&srvc=2008campaign&position=12
Juneau Empire
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031808/opi_258953362.shtml
Re: the sex-education controversy, he is also correct. I found a variety of reports going back at least a year about this issue now being resurrected . One from CBN News (which I expected would be leading an attack) addressed the issue in July 2007
So, at this point at least, what Obama is referring to is teaching five year olds about inappropriate touching. The Obama campaign also tells The Brody File that parents would be able to opt out. As for further details, the touching aspect seems to be the main idea here. Obama doesn't want to hand out condoms to five year olds. He doesn't want cucumber demonstrations as part of show and tell. The legitimate reasonable discussion here is whether the federal government and/or local school boards should get involved in providing these five year olds information about inappropriate touching or should it be left up to families only. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx Such reports from the CBN did nothing to keep the republican candidates from "ripping into Obama" by distorting the issue. It appears that the facts were not important then and are not now- what is important is the effort to portray Obama as out-of-touch and therefore not trustworthy:
The ad is the latest attack designed to cast Barack Obama as out of touch with mainstream American values. The ad will be criticized by the Obama campaign, but is it true?...The answer is yes. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2017
Cunninham and McGill suggest that it is difficult to say someone is lying for a number of reasons, including: They would be perceived as being biased- and thus not credible- by not presenting "both" sides of a story even if they know a lie exists. They are afraid that they would lose access to important sources (like the President and administration, knowing that in all cases the "sources have all the chips") if they write critical articles, or they have somehow failed in the task of explaining or describing the material, often the very complex technical material that their sources have given them (especially given) the advent of the blogosphere (which has)certainly has exacerbated this fear many-fold.(And this was a concern in 2004...)
There is a huge concern for, or fear of, changing from the "he said, she said" attempt at "balance" in a story to some other model.
Solutions: An adjustment of journalists' philosophy and practice of Journalism.
McGill:
If journalists became more conscious of the larger commercial and social context in which they work; and more conscious, too, of the potential good they could do for society not by chasing the big scoop but rather the solid important story; and if they really steeped themselves in the details of matters truly worth exploring; then yes, I can well imagine they would start to form some firm and principled opinions of their own on public affairs. This would not be objective, but it would be useful.
Cunningham:
The test, though, should not be whether it is tendentious, but whether it is true... mainstream reporters by and large are not ideological warriors. They are imperfect people performing a difficult job that is crucial to society. Letting them write what they know and encouraging them to dig toward some deeper understanding of things is not biased, it is essential...
Their professional values make them, Herbert Gans argues, akin to reformers, and they should embrace that aspect of what they do, not hide it for fear of being slapped with a bias charge. And when actual bias seeps in — as it surely will — the self-policing in the newsroom must be vigorous...
Journalists have more tools today than ever to help them "adjudicate factual disputes., and they need to remember that, as Cunningham finishes with in describing Ron Martz' experience,... an accomplished reporter, should worry at all that his reputation could suffer from something like this says much about journalism's relationship with objectivity. Martz concluded that he is a human being first and a reporter second, and was comfortable with that. Despite all our important and necessary attempts to minimize our humanity, it can't be any other way.
Krugman is correct. However, politicians "lie" all the time. they are merely putting spin on the issue that is in the current lime light. the important part is sifting through the muck to find the out the intention of the spin.
the fact checking that the press uses must make clear that there is a purpose for what is being disseminated. even if the sole purpose is to persuade rather than inform.
the BBC gave both sides of the "lipstick" controversy. I.E why it is seen as sexist, and then the Obama damage control.
interestingly, they had moved on to "Troopergate" involving Palin. and have not mentioned "TBTN".
I think that the form of "balancing" is apparent in the media. it serves to polarize the public to a particular viewpoint.
of course the Obama campaign has lied. but perhapes lie is too harsh a word. misconstruted the truth sounds much better. like I said before all politicians are selective in their speechs and campaign talk.
Post a Comment