« Why Rhetorica is boring... | Main | The American Soul... »

April 12, 2005

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.

Posted by acline at April 12, 2005 3:22 PM | | Spotlight