Story time…
Earlier this week I added a ninth bias to the list of journalism’s structural biases. And I expressed a little concern that the list is growing.
I’m concerned because a simple list of biases suggests equality rather than hierarchy. Some of these are just far more structuring of journalistic behavior than others. Part of the work that must be done, as I develop a theory of journalism (and a catalog and descriptions of its rhetoric), is to discover the proper hierarchy and then show how the various biases relate. At the moment, I think the narrative bias is the controlling structural element of journalism.
Here’s what I’ve said to this point: The press applies a narrative structure to ambiguous events in order to create a coherent and causal sense of events. What I must develop now is a clause that begins “for the purpose of…” It is the content of this clause that I hope will articulate the (changing) rhetoric of journalism. For background, please read my essay on developing a field theory of journalism.
One could argue that this (unformed) theory may be applied to most human communication. We are story-telling animals. And I’d agree. At one point I thought of dismissing it because it can be applied so broadly, but now I see its wide application to human communication as its strength. My field theory essay argues that journalism is this culture’s most important discoursive practice–forming, and formed by, the culture’s noetic field.
(Note: The term “noetic field” is apparently also used by New Agers. Whatever it is they’re talking about is not what I’m talking about. For my purposes, the definition is (from James A. Berlin): a closed system defining what can, and cannot, be known; the nature of the knower; the nature of the relationship between the knower, the known, and the audience; and the nature of language. One might also call it a culture’s overarching rhetorical situation.)
I hadn’t planned to write about this today, but I read a recent article by Joshua Wolf Shenk that got me thinking about that expanding list of biases and how it needs to become a hierarchy. The article simply reinforced for me what I believe is the primacy of narrative in journalism.
Shenk’s article is not about journalism, or at least not directly so. He’s discussing (correctly, I think) the crying need for a more compelling liberal story in the 2004 presidential campaign (for a related idea involving “frames,” you might revisit this interview with George Lakoff).
I don’t have much to base this on other than a couple of things that have crossed my field of view lately – and perhaps you’ve already talked about this elsewhere – but it seems to me that, in addition to making up a narrative about particular events, members of the media also create a meta-narrative which defines the role they play individually as newsmakers.
I have contemplated this lately because of two things: First is this post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly. Drum takes Jonathan Alter to task for writing gentle critiques, laced with optimism, of the Bush administration, while outside of the confines of his Newsweek column, Alter is willing to espouse a much more vitriolic and pessimistic view of Bush, as he apparently did on Air America Radio.
The other item that struck me was a story related by Ariana Huffington during a speech in Seattle last month. Huffington described being on a talk show and describing Bush as a “dry drunk.” When she explained what she meant, her fellow panelists all gave non-committal looks, yet as soon as the show went to commercial they all piped up firmly in agreement.
We all make up a face for the public, one that allows us to get along in the world, yet if these anecdotes point to common behavior among journalists I find it a bit worrying. I don’t see how we can properly push discussion of critical issues forward if the media are unwilling to say what they really think. Of course reporting should be tempered with judgment and respect for all points of view, but if you’re writing only to fit a narrative, how does that contribute to informed discourse?
Perhaps this relates to your “Glory Bias.” The media are aware of the characters they play on the stage of world politics and, like good actors, will play those parts to the hilt, regardless of their personal views. The media are not writing from what is known, they are writing a script that fits an idealized world view. The effect is that no matter what the policies or who the policy makers, the public gets the same bland, recycled narrative. That is a dangerous state of affairs.
Contemplating the Media
A comment I left at Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal: Story time… I don’t have much to base this on other than a couple of things that have crossed my field of view lately – and perhaps you’ve already talked about this…
Stuart…thanks for the thoughtful comment and link. I will be looking into meta-narrative.
Did you see the recent interview with Bill Moyers where he says something like “If I pretend not to know all the stuff I know, does that make me objective?”
I think your approach is helpful because I think that we are story-telling creatures. I think we often forget that we live in our models of the universe. It’s a great thing to tell each other stories, and it’s also a great thing to recognize that these stories approximate, rather than describe, the universe. The purpose of studying the narrative bias (for instance) is not to eliminate that bias, but to understand it. The better I do that, the more I will be able to do with the journalism I take in, and the better I will understand the world.
As for the heirarchy vs. list idea, what I see it as is a weighted list, where each bias or frame has a certain weight. Those weights are based on aspects of the noetic field, which changes pretty slowly, but also on context of various kinds. For example, the narrative is really paramount, but there are occasions and topics where the fairness bias will temporarily trump it, and so on.
,
-V.
V- I did not see that interview.
Re: understanding narrative, not eliminating it
Yes, exactly!
Re: weight
Interesting. I don’t think this necessarily conflicts with the idea of hierarchy, and I’ll certainly give it some thought.
The interview is at http://www.texasmonthly.com/csc/talks.php at the moment. It’s in the June 2004 Issue of Texas Monthly. I’ve overstated what he actually says, but I think not misrepresented it.
,
-V.
#1 – except for the shrill and trite partisan rants, I agree with the Shenk essay – the Democratic Party filed Intellectual Bankruptcy decades ago and are quite comfortable with the lack of ideas, and fall back on Attack! Attack! Attack! as policy. #2 – Jay Rosen at PressThink has some thoughts about press bias, but in a more general, rather than academic, vein. #3- as for the Alter bit – this is interesting on various levels; the red-meaters rightly want someone with the megaphone that Alter possesses at Newsweek to trumpet their ideology; Alter realizes that if he comes out of the closet with his true feelings/opinions, he will have the same credibility as Michael Moore with the mainstream; and on the right, this just confirms their suspicions about the press – that they are really shrill partisans, pretending to be objective. Jay Rosen touches on this subject – that the press should admit their bias, so we, the public will know how to evaluate what is written. After reading Walter Conkrite’s columns for a year, I can’t believe we really thought he was the “Most Trusted Man in America”. All journos, columnists, reporters, anchors, whatever, need to come clean with the public on how they stand. That Len Downie, Jr. said he had “no idea” about the political impact of the new Abu Ghraib photos/videos WaPo released speaks volumns as to the deceit of the national press. They need to display the same transparency they demand of others.