The Rhetorica Network offers analysis and commentary about the rhetoric, propaganda, and spin of journalism and politics, including analysis of presidential speeches and election campaigns. This site features the Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal web log, comprehensive news media links, a rhetoric textbook, a primer of critical techniques, and information for citizens. The character of Rhetorica represents the purposes and canons of classical rhetoric. --Andrew R. Cline, Ph.D.
“We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry,” –Dan Rather.
No kidding. But more, I think CBS News made a fundamental error: Dan et. al. forgot that journalism is supposed to operate with a discipline of verification. Among the many things this means: Being “misled” is no excuse.
Posting Schedule:
Spring 2009
MWF: After 1:00 p.m.
TR: After 8:30 a.m.
SS: When the mood strikes.
Send e-mail to:
dr.cline # rhetorica # net
If you would like to use this button to link to The Rhetorica Network, please feel free to copy it or hotlink to it.
Dr. Andrew R. Cline
Assistant Professor of Journalism
Missouri State University
Spring 2008 Schedule
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License
Doc, back in the day, when you were a journo, could you have ever envisioned a time when describing a bogus source as “fake, but accurate” would be acceptable? What has happened to journalism?
Many things have happened to journalism. I wouldn’t say that what CBS did is the new norm. I think you’ll find that CBS will catch a lot of heat for this. But, yes, I find it frightening that such a thing could be uttered in seriousness.
Do you think that this story was a feeding frenzy because the media trys to protect what degree of public trust, they have left?
I really think this story is a distraction. I saw an MSNBC “quick poll” today that asks if Dan Rather should be fired? The majority thinks he should be canned.
Let me get this right: If Rather and CBS were misled and continued to push their agenda, then the reporter should be fired, but if the President of the U.S. is misled and continues to mis-lead, then he should be re-elected?
Ok. Got it.
Nels and JSteele… Yes, that is one reason this is a feeding frenzy. And the role of blogs comes into play here, too. And the whole stupid media bias thing, too (as if CBS was TRYING to dis the Prez with fake documents).
Oh, and didn’t someone say once that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?
haha!
I don’t think Dan should or will get canned. He’s a victim of the sloppy work of others and a victim of his own arrogance. But he stood up and took it like a man yesterday, and Americans usually forgive under those circumstances. I predict, however, that he will retire within 12 months. He’s hurt himself, but he’ll want time to let the hurt fade.
I’m offended by CBS’s collective sloppiness. But I’m also not surprised.
As one who was suspicious of the Rather-CBS bias before the bloggers began questioning the authenticity of the documents, I believe all of the networks need to clean up their acts. And so should the AP, NYT, LAT and Chicago Trib.
They need to give their top editorial executives new marching orders. Report the news fairly and as objectively as possible. Hire both conservative and left-wing reporters and editors, and hold both editors and reporters accountable for the content and headlines on stories and columns. If you run extremists such as Krugman, label them as such, but don’t let them lie and make false accusations.
The problems with the major media begin in the board rooms and executive suites of the publishers and owners of the broadcasters and cable networks. Board members and executives are so focused on selling ads that they aren’t doing their jobs in hiring strong, honest editors who will do theirs.
An important lesson for journalistic academics and their students is that intellectual integrity is important, and if you don’t have it, your students and your readers will figure it out in a flash, and your credibility will be shot. Dan Rather and CBS blew their cover more than 30 years ago, as did most of the media based on the coasts.
The only people who haven’t got it are academics and political journalists who have been so focused on their fame and honorariums that they haven’t given ethics a thought for a long time. And this probably is because they have always been intellectually dishonest in all facets of their lives.
What a sad commentary for a veteran journalist to have to write, but, then, I’ve said this before. Because my comments are considered politically incorrect and “unfair” by the shallow left who control the media, they are ignored, but that’s ok. The real world agrees with me, and life goes on.
Donald… I agree with many of your points, especially regarding integrity (an important lesson that I work very hard to bring to my classroom). And I think a political bias may certainly have played a role in CBS’s blindness in regard to the documents.
While I know that for many people a liberal bias in the news media feels like common sense, it simply isn’t. How do I know? Because such claims do not predict press behavior with accuracy. A claim of liberal bias does not, for example, predict or explain instances of conservative bias (of which there are many). But the structural biases predict and explain both.
I said this in the previous comment: “And the whole stupid media bias thing, too (as if CBS was TRYING to dis the Prez with fake documents).” I do not think CBS was trying to use fake documents for political purposes. I think it is entirely possible they got hoodwinked by fake documents in part because of political biases. Other parts: the demands of drama following from narrative bias and bad-news bias.
If you concede that CBS “got hoodwinked by fake documents in part because of political biases”, then you are conceding the point of big-media liberal bias (at least in the case of CBS/60 Minutes). Whether they deliberately set out to use phony documents (which I don’t believe to be true either), or they were too eager to report a story backed-up by what turned out to be phony documents because the story implied by the documents supported their biases, isn’t this a distinction without a difference? You don’t need to be a conspiricy theorist to see the kind of naturally-occurring bias that is evidenced by the stories chosen to report, the sources chosen to be interviewed, and the slant given to politically sensitive stories.
I have to question whether the parallel between CBS/Rather and the Bush administration is being applied correctly and with intellectual honesty.
If you believe that the Bush administration was misled into a war in Iraq (Chalabi, Niger forgeries), was it because of an ideological bias (neocons?) or because of a structural bias?
For example, was it the Master Narrative about Iraq, WMD and terrorism that developed over a decade since Desert Storm or at least since Kamel’s defection in 1995?
And depending on your answer, then was CBS News/60 Minutes (Heyward’s/Rather’s administration?) misled into airing this story based on an ideological bias or their Master Narrative about the character of Bush’s National Guard service?
Or both? Did one enable the other?
Charles… There’s a distinction if you can identify one. I have never said that bias does not exist. I have said it is not predictive of journalistic behavior and not as important to the understanding of press behavior as the structural biases. Further, bias is a local phenomenon, i.e. local a journalist, an issue, a news organization, etc.
This appears to me to be a case in which a juicy story about a Republican president blinded a few journalists *partly* because of a political bias. I could be wrong.
It is certainly the case that some journalists let ideological bias intrude on professional practice. It is not the case that all journalists do or that all the journalists who do are liberal.
Tim… You’re asking some interesting questions. But I’m having a difficult time answering because: 1- You are assuming that I hold a certain position about Iraq that I may not hold, and 2- The structural biases I’ve written about are press biases, not the biases of politicians.
It would be interesting to come up with a list of the structural biases of politics. But I will leave that to others.
In any case, yes, the master narrative and drama portions of the narrative bias are certainly playing role in this situation. Did the concept of MN play a role in the decision to go to war. Hmmmmmm…good question. A knee-jerk answer would be: yes.
I apologize if it appeared that I was assuming you held a certain position, that was not my intention. I was only intending to ask the question generally since JSteele alluded to it earlier. Rather than take a partisan position, I was only trying to test the analogy in an interesting way. Having said that, I am very grateful for your response.
2- The structural biases I’ve written about are press biases, not the biases of politicians.
I agree with you that the political considerations that go into their Master Narratives may be different in weighting and scope than the considerations in pressthink’s structural biases. But I also think that the Master Narratives in the press play an important role in public opinion/knowledge/memes that both influence and enable political narratives (both spin and those being operated on but unspoken).
That seems to be an interesting reflection back onto rhetorical considerations for the press. I also think it is an important way to defuse some of the hyper-partisan rhetoric/thinking that we hear today.
Perhaps there is already a list of political structural biases that could be used to develop relationships to your structural bias? Perhaps it is an interdisciplinary effort, one that a political scientist or politically interested economist would undertake?
Of course, I’m only tossing out ideas, commenting out loud on a blog, not volunteering my own time, and everyone’s busy, I know.
But I do appreciate your blog for the opportunity and place to express it and your interest in replying.
Tim… relax, man; I wasn’t getting on your case
I was simply trying to avoid an aspect of the issue that I don’t want to get into right now.
Re: “Perhaps there is already a list of political structural biases that could be used to develop relationships to your structural bias? Perhaps it is an interdisciplinary effort, one that a political scientist or politically interested economist would undertake?”
This is very interesting. I had not thought of trying to map my list to another for politics.
Okay, Rhetorica Readers…does such a list exist for politics? Let’s go looking. And if you have suggestions or directions, please use the feedback form (linked out front) to send them.
Very cool.
OK, less deference this time
On a lighter not, I wonder how Kaus’ Feiler Faster Thesis and the Reality Principle could be used to explain the dynamism (or lack of it) in recent and future Master Narratives, both in the press and in politics.
For example, NYT/J. Miller’s WMD narrative, which seemed slow to change, and Rathergate, which seems to have the potential to change the narrative on the character of Bush’s National Guard service overnight. Or how 9/11 changed the Master Narrative about W’s gravitas. Or the wildly shifting fortunes of Dean during the primary season and then stubbornness of Kerry’s “electability”. Or even the impact of the SBVT on the character of Kerry’s Vietnam service.
Naw, that’s just babbling now. I should have stopped when I was ahead. Anyway, thanks!
“Perhaps there is already a list of political structural biases…?”
Answer: in states as in soup pans…
Tangent: “What are the structural biases?” is a fruitful question to ask in many realms.
E.g. how we perceive the opposition. We ourselves are fairly rational, and associate with other rational people of “our kind”; we have considerably less first-hand exposure to our counterparts of the “other kind”. Much of our opinion of them is formed by what our betters (the A-listers) say about them; what the A-listers are most likely to get worked up enough to remark upon, is the most egregious offenses of the opposition. Voila’ - all our personal and vicarious experience supports the conclusion that the opposition is made up of extremists.