The stacked-deck, split-scream boogie…
John Avlon hopes the cancellation of Crossfire will lead to a reevaluation of “split-scream” journalism. And he believes this is something the American public wants:
There is an untapped market for a real alternative to the split-scream phenomena, a desire for compelling figures who can punch both left and right as equal opportunity offenders-keeping a sense of humor while respecting the audience’s intelligence.
I agree, but where’s the proof? I don’t have any proof either, except for this notion in regard to print journalism: The one thing the newspaper industry hasn’t tried in its efforts to retain and gain audience is taking that audience seriously, e.g. giving readers depth over schlock and political utility over entertainment.
Let TV entertain. It’s a much better medium for it. And that’s why I am not optimistic about the cancellation of the odious Crossfire. TV won’t replace it with something more substantive, especially when the audience appears to prefer a species of split-scream even more odious than Crossfire: the stacked-deck split-scream rant, in which one side is always the winner and we know who going in.
Can you imagine watching a sporting even with a predetermined outcome? I’m not talking about an event with a heavy favorite–I’m talking you know the winner because it’s been determined before the “contest” event begins.
Well, that appears to me to be the new split-scream model, which means our civic discourse as presented on TV is getting worse and not better.
Beltway Traffic Jam
The daily linkfest:
Kevin Aylward has created a paginated version of the CBS report that’s web accessible.
Mark Hasty chronicles the joys of traveling the Upper Midwest.
Steven Taylor contemplates the value of portable music.
Fontana Labs discove…
re: “I agree, but where’s the proof?”
Arguably, I think Jon Stewart provides a glimpse of this proof.
OK, I’ll bring up the CBS report and you can ignore it:
“myopic zeal” -> Expediency bias
“fervent faith” -> ??
There actually seemed to be two types of “fervent faith” that lead to this journalistic failure. One was Mapes “fervent faith” in her story and the other was Rather’s “fervent faith” in Mapes and CBS executive’s “fervent faith” in Rather/Mapes.
Is that a Loyalty Bias? Loyalty to your sense of truth in a story (eschewing doubt and humility once decided)? Loyalty to your product/brand (protect/”circle wagons”/stand by story)? Loyalty to your team?
I’m also trying to understand the basis for Mapes “fervent faith” in her story. She must have been aware that she was elevating partisan sources from one side (Paul Lukasiak, Linda Starr, Lieutenant Colonel Burkett, …) and ignoring others – including non-partisans(!).
How do you explain that blinding, “fervent faith” in journalism? I find it hard to believe that Mapes is the only one to suffer this malady as a journalist, or that the CBS News personnel around her are unique in their faithful deference to the team.
S- Interesting re: Stewart. He may have indeed been proof because, as I said at he time, one must be interested and informed before TDS may be properly enjoyed. Good call!
Re: Rather
I’m not ignoring it. I simply don’t find it very interesting at this point (although I think Jay Rosen has a worthy idea in his current post). I said at the time that I thought memogate was an example of political bias getting the better of structural bias.
re: How do you explain that blinding, “fervent faith” in journalism?
That would depend upon the individual case. I do not accept “fervent faith” as a universal characteristic of journalists unless we’re talking their faith in the structural biases–for which is ample evidence of fervent faith.
Re: loyalty bias. Interesting. I’ll give that some thought.
Re: Re: Rather
It’s bigger than Rather.
But I’m not above blogging about it (Visual Quiz: Who’s the Missing Link?
Re: I said at the time that I thought memogate was an example of political bias getting the better of structural bias.
You say that as if they’re two different things, rather than political bias being a composite of structural biases. Couldn’t the expediency bias (and/or others) account for much of what is perceived as political bias? For example, I wrote at my blog: “The panel concludes that the report was rushed to air (”myopic zeal”) because of competition (what Andrew Cline at Rhetorica calls the Expediency bias).” Was I wrong? Could the presence of Expediency bias (+) account for airing this segment? How does the recommended “Standards Executive” and recommended revisions to standards apply to the Expediency bias and/or other structural biases? How do we know what’s been recommended is a fix? Or that they’ve diagnosed the problem correctly and are recommeding the appropriate fix to correct the real problem?
Re: individual case vs. universal characteristic and the structural biases
Jarvis: But one theme we keep hearing regarding the problems at CBS is the “culture” there. Said CBS Chairman Les Moonves: “This is a rude awakening for CBS News and the CBS News culture has to change.” It’s the culture that needs curing.
If the structural biases represent a “professional ideology”, do they also represent a culture? Do they only influence the culture? Can the culture be changed, “cured” as Jarvis might say, without significantly changing the structural bias? IOW, how would selling CBS/News change the culture without or without changing the structural biases?
Isn’t the humiliation of the sale a “shock and awe” shake-up of their “fervent faith”? Or, is it an attack on their loyalties?
Jarvis again: FoxNews’ Brigitte Quinn told me when we were off-camera today that when she was at CBS Radio, there was a separate society of Murrowites. … The point: All the Murrow Legacy hooha is part of what’s wrong with CBS, I think; it’s part of the misguided belief that this is the Tiffany Network and that they can do no wrong. They most certainly can.
Fix for second Jarvis link.
S- I have to get to class, but here’s a quick response:
Re: difference
Yes, overt political bias and the structural biases are very different things. But you are correct that some practices dictated by the structural biases do create outcomes that appear to be overt political bias. This is why so much of the bias ranting is simply wrong.
Re: culture
Yes. While I usually don’t speak of “culture” in this way, it is a good way to understand structural bias. I prefer to see it in term of rhetoric for obvious reasons
These biases are structural because they help form a culture (rhetoric) that understands these practices as a common sense part of proper professional practice.
The culture (rhetoric) is changing. See my essay on a field theory of journalism linked in the sidebar.
ac-
re: overt political bias
Is overt political bias the same thing as a political agenda? I noticed that the CBS report uses both terms. Why do you think they use both and what did you think they were trying to (not) say by doing so?
For example, I wrote this: If the media has a political agenda, it’s to be the first one to bring down the incumbent (To quote The Note: “… incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.”). Journalists who self-identify themselves as liberals, or Democrats, and outnumber conservatives in the newsrooms, may have a predisposition that makes them more or less credulous to certain narratives, but a partisan politcal agenda? Rare, in my experience.
You got a problem with that? Huh?
S- re: “Is overt political bias the same thing as a political agenda? I noticed that the CBS report uses both terms. Why do you think they use both and what did you think they were trying to (not) say by doing so?”
Those are good questions. I’d like to answer them on the blog. I’ll try to get to it later today.