White space…
On Monday, I said I would have more to say about this “tomorrow.” Susan Q. Stranahan laments that reporters often have a difficult time accepting that motives do correspond with messages. Do politicians mean what they say, or is every message merely a political maneuver to gain advantage?
Do doctors intend to cure patients, or is every diagnosis just a rhetorical flourish to prove how smart they are? Do honeydew dippers intend to clean out septic tanks, or are they just trying to prove how full of shit your are?
Politics is a profession with certain fundamental intentions built into the system. It doesn’t matter if the system is an absolute despotism or a radical democracy, the political actors involved in governance must come to some balance of power (to get things done) and choice (what to do, when, and for/to whom).
I suppose people enter the profession of politics for many reasons, just as others choose to be doctors, honeydew dippers, or college professors for various reasons. Depending upon our ethical standards, we may evaluate these reasons as good or bad, e.g. the person who becomes a doctor just to get rich.
By taking it for granted “that motive never corresponds to message,” as Stranahan charges, journalists evaluate the motives of politicians as always something less than good. This attitude fails to match a more complex reality. And this failure means that journalists miss the politically useful (good for their readers) as they search for the politically expedient (bad for their readers if the former is all but excluded).
Why does this happen? It happens because journalists operate with a set of professional biases and assumptions about language that make it difficult for them to connect motives and messages. Ulterior motives may exist “between the lines” of any discourse–a locus of drama to be sure. But before it can be found there, and properly evaluated, the message in the lines (the locutionary and illocutionary acts) must be understood and evaluated. Otherwise, all that exists between the lines is so much white space.
I read your post about Media Bias and it is really superb and eye opening. It is clear that we, as news consumers, have to read everything with some degree of skepticism (not cynicism necessarily) and question the underlying assumptions by the writer–not necessarily to debunk the article-but to understand that the validity depends on certain assumptions that, if changed, would lead to a different conclusion. Also we need to understand that journalism is not engineering–ie, that what we read is not an objective rendering of facts, but requires some ordering or reality. If I understand, I think that is what you are trying to get at.
Two other points in your post that I found interesting. First, your point about the media being a competitive industry that fosters some possibly dysfunctional traits in order to increase profits. I have always thought that the competitive ethos in journalism is often harmful to the product. Do you think that this competitive ethos is inherent to journalism or is merely a function of the business component?
Second, the idea that bad news and conflict sells. It has always seemed to me that one of the major problems with news media is that its emphasis on the anecdotal, i.e., if you see a couple of stories on child abuse, for example, you tend to think this is a much more widespread problem than it really is. Do you believe that this is a function of concentration of media that in itself leads to this? Would a less concentrated media be less focused on the anecdotal? Or would smaller media be more focused on the sensational because of more need for profit?
Thanks for a very interesting blog.
“Ulterior motives may exist..before it can be found there…Otherwise…”
An illustration would help this reader’s comprehension a lot.
BTW, Matthew Yglesias does structural bias over at Brad Delong’s (July 13 – http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001188.html ) –
“The structural problem with the White House press pool is that they insist on covering all presidential speeches as hard-news events, like a local gastation explosion or something, where the reporter’s job is to use the inverted pyramid format to explain what happened in Oak Ridge, Tennessee at such-and-such a time on such-and-such a day.
What they should be doing is treating presidential speeches like they’re op-eds, to be assessed as arguments, not ‘covered’ as news. But they don’t. Not because it’s a whole bunch of dirty rightwingers…but because it’s a bunch of newspaper reporters.”
I guess it’s a form of your #3, “News can be reported in neutral terms”.
MWS…You ask some excellent questions, and I hope I can offer equally excellent answers (or at least a place to start to find answers).
re: Do you think that this competitive ethos is inherent to journalism or is merely a function of the business component?
I don’t think it’s either-or. I think the these factors arise together. In other words, the competition you’re likely to get in the practice of journalism will depend upon the socio-economic-political context within which it is practiced. In the American context, with the rise of the so-called objective press during the age of industrialization, I see no way that it could have turned out differently without government intervention (but that would change the context).
re: Do you believe that this is a function of concentration of media that in itself leads to this? Would a less concentrated media be less focused on the anecdotal? Or would smaller media be more focused on the sensational because of more need for profit?
I would first refer you to John Allen Paulos’ book “A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper” for an interesting takedown of the “trend” article. Anecdotes are mini-narratives, and narrative is one of the fundamental techniques humans have always used to explain the world. I think the problems you’re identifying have technological roots, i.e. it’s easier to spread anecdotes in a global village.
Anna…Thanks for the link! Now, here’s a rather simplistic illustration:
Suppose I want to pick a fight with someone. I could just punch him in the nose. But if I want him to strike first, I might say to him: “Your mama wears combat boots”! I am asserting a “fact.” But assertion is not the purpose of my comment. In other words, I do not *mean* the literal meaning of that comment. What I mean to do is have him “read between the lines” and get my real message: “Take a swing; I dare you”!
Messages are always complex. But the meaning the speaker means might be found at a more literal level first. My point was this: Interpret from the surface down because intention and meaning may be found at a level more shallow that we might suppose. Journalists covering politics seem to think there is always an alternative motive that is hidden yet nakedly political. In other words, when Senator Blowhard introduces a bill to extend welfare payments to single mothers, that’s interpreted first as a political maneuver to outfox the opposition and not necessarily an attempt to help welfare mothers.