What can you trust?…
Is it possible to change your political ideology? I doubt it’s possible to do so consciously, i.e. by force of will. But I think it’s pretty clear that our minds do change.
Should we distrust someone whose ideology flip-flops?
Take David Brock, president and CEO of Media Matters for America, for example. He’s turned his much ballyhooed conversion from conservative to liberal into a growing media-criticism empire. Should we trust him?
Here’s what Tom Rosenstiel, director of Project for Excellence in Journalism, says:
“Once somebody has demonstrated himself to be an utterly untrustworthy liar…why in the world would anybody think he has credibility now that he has switched teams?”
Recall that in his book, Blinded by the Right, Brock says he was a liar for the GOP.
I think the answer to Rosenstiel’s question may be found in the work that Media Matters does. In any case, I think Rosenstiel is a bit more on point when he says:
“I don’t have a lot of patience for any media criticism that is based in ideology.
Amen, brother!
Allow me a sweeping generalization: Any research that proceeds from ideological concerns is necessarily flawed and should be met with more than academic skepticism; its motives should be scorned.
(Caveat: I am not claiming that ideologically-driven or interested research is useless or unimportant. Applied research, for example, attempts to solve real problems–certainly interested. I’m drawing the distinction between politically-driven research–i.e. research to solve the problem of winning politically–and “pure” research meant to increase understanding of a given phenomenon.)
Rosenstiel’s next statement (continuing directly) is interesting:
“Frankly, [for] reporters who cover the news business, it makes our lives more complicated.”
Any good journalist should be able to accept, and learn from, research-based criticism. But putting an ideological spin on it adds an unnecessary degree of difficulty. The journalist then must weigh the findings of the research against the motivations driving it. The findings may be 100 percent legitimate. So the spin ends up hurting the journalist and the researcher by introducing a pathetic intrusion.
There’s no getting around these facts: 1) Political experience is complicated (which I think journalists understand for the most part), but 2) It is quite impossible (at the moment) to write news articles that speak the language of diverse ideologies given the current noetic field because journalists operate with the following misconceptions about language (from my Media/Political Bias page and George Lakoff’s Moral Politics):
- Concepts are literal and nonpartisan: The standard six-question rubric of journalism (who, what, when, where, why, how) cannot capture the complexity of issues as seen through, and expressed by, the incompatible moral systems of liberals and conservatives.
- Language use is neutral: “Language is associated with a conceptual system. To use the language of a moral or political conceptual system is to use and to reinforce that conceptual system.”
- News can be reported in neutral terms: Not if #2 is correct. To choose a discourse is to choose a position. To attempt neutrality confuses the political concepts. Is it an “inheritance tax” or a “death tax”? What could possibly be a neutral term? To use both in the name of balance is confusing because most news articles don’t have the space, and most TV treatments don’t have the time, to fully explain the terms and why liberals prefer one and conservatives prefer the other. There’s no time or space to explain why this language difference matters (beyond political tactics) to the formation, implementation, and evaluation of policy.
- Mere use of language cannot put anyone at a disadvantage: Again, see #2.
- All readers and viewers share the same conceptual system: We share the same English language, i.e. its grammar. We often do not share dialects or the denotations and connotations of concepts, lived experience, and ideologies. The statement “I am a patriotic American” means something entirely different to liberals and conservatives. That difference is more than a matter of connotation. The differences in connotation spring from different moral constructs. What the conservative means by that statement appears immoral to the liberal and vice versa.
MMA, FAIR, AIM and all the rest fight political battles rather than attempt to come to a better understanding of how the news media work or how/why journalists behave as they do. These groups are proof that you can find evidence to “prove” any kind of bias. And if you can do that, then it’s 100 percent certain that something else is going on.
I find your argument confusing. You agree with Rosenstiel’s statement:
“I don’t have a lot of patience for any media criticism that is based in ideology.”
and make an admittedly sweeping generalization that the motives of research grounded in ideological concern should be “scorned.”
Would this generalization then apply to the work of Rosenstiel’s organization, as well as your own argument? While different from the ideology of liberalism and conservatism, are you both not arguing from a bias of “journalism?” As I read it, your argument is based in the belief that journalists operate within boundaries established by outside forces, and that the only way to change this is to first understand it and make practitioners aware of it. (I realize this is a somewhat simplistic explanation.) My point being that all research is, to some degree, driven by ideology and therefore, one must be skeptical of all research.
I’m also confused by a contradiction within your argument, specifically related to journalists’ misconceptions about language. On the one hand you state that one of Strunk & White’s “dumbest rules” is “omit needless words.”
On the other hand you state “It is quite impossible (at the moment) to write news articles that speak the language of diverse ideologies…” because “To choose a discourse is to choose a position. To attempt neutrality confuses the political concepts.” You then argue “…most news articles don’t have the space, and most TV treatments don’t have the time, to fully explain the terms…. There’s no time or space to explain why this language difference matters (beyond political tactics) to the formation, implementation, and evaluation of policy.”
While you disagree with S & W’s rule you seem to argue that journalists must follow it due to limits on time and space. I believe MMA, FAIR and even AIM point out the unbalanced, non-neutral words used as evidence of bias or slant or whatever one must call it.
Using your example: “Is it an “inheritance tax” or a “death tax”? What could possibly be a neutral term?” Why not call it what it is? A federal estate tax which applies only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million, or less than two percent of all estates. Or is that too many words?
Newspapers and television newscasts have arbitrarily determined how much space or time to devote to news. It doesn’t have to be this way. But I believe that is the point you often try to make.
DocLarry–
re: “My point being that all research is, to some degree, driven by ideology and therefore, one must be skeptical of all research.”
Yes. But my post takes place within a larger conversation about a particular kind of ideology. One must certainly be skeptical of all research. That’s a proper academic attitude springing from the academic ideology.
re: “Newspapers and television newscasts have arbitrarily determined how much space or time to devote to news. It doesn’t have to be this way. But I believe that is the point you often try to make.”
The amount of space and time is limited by economics and is, therefore, not entirely arbitrary.
Thanks for your comment. I’m going on a blogging break. So we’ll have to continue this conversation next week.