The American Soul…The A-word…
Nicholas Kristof almost gets it:
If one word can capture the public attitude toward American journalists, I’m afraid it’s “arrogant.” Not surprisingly, I think that charge is grossly unfair. But it’s imperative that we respond to that charge–not by dismissing it, but by working far more diligently to reconnect with the public.
Arrogance is the state of being arrogant (you must click the link to eliminate to tautology). Part of what that means is dismissing the lived experience of others. If that one word does indeed “capture the public attitude toward American journalists,” then it behooves Kristof (and every other journalist) to pay careful attention. That he believes it’s unfair is of no consequence to the public. And that he feels compelled to remind himself and his fellow journalists not to dismiss the charge is an elegant bit of proof that it is true.
I’ve used the A-word a few times regarding journalists (here’s one example). I contend there are many sources of journalistic arrogance. Here’s a short list:
1. In the current noetic field, the epistemology of journalism asserts that reporters become knowers of facts and truth because they have access to primary knowers, i.e. sources.
2. The rhetoric of journalism as lecture is an expository form that encourages journalists to believe that they are able to reproduce their knowledge in textual form and pass it along the language conduit to a public that can unpack meaning and truth from the text. Failure to discern the intended truth is rarely considered the fault of reporter and nearly always considered the fault of the public.
2a. In the he-said/she-said style of journalistic discourse, the rhetoric actually hides the truth. Here the reporter fails in his obligation to the public to be a custodian of facts and portrays himself overtly as a political insider. The public is left to figure out the truth for itself, but this style of reporting rarely offers the information and knowledge to do so.
3. Reporting used to be a working-class profession. No more. It requires a college degree (not necessarily a journalism degree). Only about 1 in 4 Americans has a college degree. And the statistics regarding education and class are quite clear. For the most part, people who get college degrees earn substantially more than those who do not. Further, the socio-economic class of a college freshman is a far better indicator of success in higher education than an SAT or ACT score.
4. Our culture teaches the ridiculous notion that facility in school grammar equals intelligence and refinement. Journalists become quite skilled in school grammar and the culture’s privileged discourse. But their lack of understanding of language beyond the level of style often leads them to falsely assume that those who speak/write different dialects of English are not as smart.
5. Journalists are notorious for failing to correct their errors. Little correction boxes tucked away inside the paper don’t cut it even for simple errors such as misspelled names (My suggestion: a sizeable, daily correction feature in the front section). The bigger the error, the bigger the splash the correction should make. Further, journalists hide behind the skirts of authorities and plead innocence when they pass along bad information. To forget the discipline of verification is to display arrogance. Richard Jewel for example deserved better, more skeptical, reporting. And when he didn’t get it, he deserved retractions that made as big a splash as the bad information.
Arrogant? Yes. Intentional? Sometimes. Its causes are broadly cultural. And that should be a warning to those of us typing away in cyberspace–a place very much a product of the culture. We who blog are not immune to these same forces. Blogging arrogance emerged long ago.
Kristoff early in the column says, “… and a major reason, I think, is that we in the news media are widely perceived as arrogant, out of touch and untrustworthy.”
How much of the above explains “out of touch” and “untrustworthy” or is that another (two?) essay(s)?
I would add one more to the arrogance list. A sense of entitlement, exclusivity and elitism, rooted in a false sense of 1st Amendment ownership.
The Journalists v. Bloggers is only the latest spat where new technology has challenged the exclusivity of the club/tribe/profession. For example, radio and television met much the same disdain.
S- Yes, that’s a good addition to the list.
2a speaks a little to trustworthiness and being out of touch. But, mostly, my list is specific to my discipline, which is what I intended.
Perhaps you and others will add to it. A collective list might get a little attention.
re: or is that another (two?) essay(s)?
haha… maybe
Nick Kristof Worries About Media Credibility
Then there’s the ultimate in press arrogance, the federal shield law, which is supra-Constitutional and would place journos ABOVE the law, giving them rights and privileges no other citizen enjoys.
I might be for this law if I thought it would improve the news, but unfortunately, we would see more “unnamed sources” and outright making stuff up since the reporters would know they could not be held accountable.
The federal shield law might more palatable to the public if journos would give something up in return, like making the libel laws more consumer friendly, rather than press friendly, or even better, restricting the use of “unnamed sources” to a very narrow category, with severe punishment for failure to comply. The press needs to be held MORE accountable, not less. That they think they must be above the law in order to do their job, is the ultimate chutzpah, and I hope the federal shield law is shot down—-it offends me that is even being considered.
I think that a good deal of the arrogance is not so much class based but ideologically based. The center-left “liberal” culture assumes that they are the enlightened ones, leading society ever forward to the progressive promised land. There’s an awful lot of arrogance embedded in that world view.
Most of us belong to multiple cultures so it’s quite important that the specific culture that is the cause of a behavior should be identified. Is the cultural bias professional, J-school based, ideological, or from some other cultural source? It’s important to nail down exactly where the problem is coming from.
TM- As I said: “Part of what [arrogance] means is dismissing the lived experience of others.”
The right does this as well as the left. The left does not corner the market on seeing itself as enlightened.
The right does this as well as the left.
But the auditor perceives it differently, based on the differences between the culture/ideology of Left/Right, does she not?
S- Yes. Perceiving it as arrogance is just one way to perceive it. And the left and right, generally speaking, may perceive it differently. But, I’m dealing with a definition of arrogance in a discussion of same, so my intention here is to accept that just as liberal dismissal of the right may be perceived as arrogance, conservative dismissal of the left may be perceived as arrogance–based on the definition I’m using.
I’m avoiding of any discussion of which side is more dismissive (and why) because that could get dumb very quickly
It would be less dumb if we had a metric. I’m not sure we do. I suppose we could have a qualitative discussion of it, but then we’re into whose experience is more real–and again, dumbness could follow.
I understand you hesitancy. But I would ask that you consider how journalists have perceived and treated their critics when dismissing their life experience and the cultural differences between Left/Right.
For example, journalists are quick to dismiss the arguments of their critics as “dumb” while at the same time finding justification for their POV in the “dumb” criticism from both sides.
That might be two different forms of arrogance unique to journalists’ culture.
Then there is the cliche about the Right’s moral arrogance and the Left’s intellectual arrogance. Which do you think is closest to one of the forms of journalistic arrogance?
Hopefully I’ve avoided the dumbness that concerned you.
S- re: avoided dumbness
Yes, you have. But I expected that. That part of my comment was aimed elsewhere
As I was leaving my office after posting that comment, I realized I had missed the obvious from my own discipline (and I think it fits with what you’re getting at): We can and should discuss how the right, left, and journalism (left and/or right) vary in terms of tactics regarding the rhetoric of dismissal.
re: Which do you think is closest to one of the forms of journalistic arrogance?
Interesting question. A quick answer would be that journalistic dismissal would more closely mirror the left in terms of journalistic rhetoric (the whole epistemology argument I’ve made before). But I would say that when the press climbs on its moral high horse, it more closely resembles the right in that regard. I have no evidence, so consider this a hypothesis. It would be interesting to find out.
Arrogant, Out of Touch and Untrustworthy? Believe It! (Can Fish See the Water?)