« And?... | Main | The big difference... »
June 7, 2004
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.)
Posted by acline at June 7, 2004 10:46 AM | | Spotlight