It’s a transactional universe…
In a talk at the University of South Dakota, Allen Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, made this statement: “The biggest criticism of journalism around the world is that journalists are unfair. And generally, when you’re unfair, you’re inaccurate.”
What I am about to write is unfair but not inaccurate. It is unfair because I have not read the entire text of the speech, nor have I experienced it as a member of the intended audience. But it is accurate in the sense that I am qualified to write about such matters, and I am explaining the thinking that supports the following remarks.
Neuharth’s statement (even with the “generally” qualification) is an excellent example of a central, but unexamined, assumption about language and writing that characterizes journalistic rhetoric: There exists a word-to-world and world-to-word fit grounded in a correspondence theory of truth (as opposed to an “embodied” theory in which our experience of reality affects our understanding of truth).
Here’s the problem: “Fairness” is a political concept; “accuracy,” if we agree on the unit of measure, is much less so.
“Fairness” is experienced emotionally. The facts are what they are, but if they are used by others to work against my well-being or political goals, then I may experience them as unfair; accuracy be damned.
There is no state of being that we may all understand or experience as fair. And no amount of facts will change an experience of unfairness into fairness. So what we have here is a situation in which the concept of fairness is as illusionary as the concept of objectivity.
Journalists believe that accuracy leads to fairness. In an objectivist universe, this might be the case. We would all consider the facts, understand them from an objective point of view, and then experience them as fair because our rational minds are in control of our emotions. But because fairness is, instead, an emotionally experienced political concept in a transactional universe (as opposed to objectivist or subjectivist), simply being accurate is no guarantee that readers, sources, and other interested parties will experience fairness in the journalistic product.
Neuharth is quite right that one of the biggest criticisms of the press is that it is unfair. But this is less a criticism of the press and more a criticism of something quite natural: We all experience reality a bit differently because we have different values and interests.
I claim that I will always be fair on Rhetorica. What does that mean? It means simply this: I try, however imperfectly, to examine my assumptions and theories, describe differing positions as accurately as I am able, and invite public critique of my efforts. (It also means I need to edit my About Rhetorica page in light of what I’ve just written.)
“one of the biggest criticisms of the press is that it is unfair. But this is less a criticism of the press and more a criticism of something quite natural: We all experience reality a bit differently…”
Should we be measuring “fairness” as experienced by the reader, or as experienced by the writer? There _is_ a metric for fairness in writing – the Clinton test ( ” how would I react to situation X if it was someone I supported, rather than someone I oppose?” – http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002051.php ), but it’s hard for anyone other than the writer to measure (and if the writer’s emotional state is heated enough, performing the test is impossible). Also, given that you’d need to take the writer’s word for it that this test has been consciously applied (not that writers deign to engage in discussions of their personal fairness, perhaps they expect the reader will take it as a given…they shouldn’t.) a third metric – good faith – also comes into play.
Actually, on further thought – after following your link to the Lakoff and Johnson book – absolute fairness on the writer’s part would require not just that he judge the action independent of the actor, but also that he judge the action independent of the metaphorical framework (e.g., he should try viewing the action first through the “rigid authoritarian” lens, then through the “conscientious parent” lens – a feat of judgemental gymnastics which is, for this writer’s mind, beyond the realm of possibility. )
Anna…well, it appears you’ve come to the same place. I’m a little freaked out by it considering other things I’ve written on this website
Apropos quote from Brad DeLong today -
“reading takes place not as the author writes the book nor on the printed page nor even in the eyes but instead someplace between the ears”
Anna…good quote!