Tags
Brian Williams, entertainment, ethics, journalism, media, NBC, news
The recent flap over NBC news anchor, Brian William’s, self-aggrandized reporting highlights an even larger problem with the way American news is packaged and delivered to a passive audience.
In 2010, Martin Moore director of the Media Standards Trust, offered ten basic principles of journalism which I present below, edited for length.
- Public interest: to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time.
- Truth and accuracy: to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
- Verification: to disclose as much as possible about multiple sources and perspectives, which is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment.
- Fairness: to offer impartial information.
- Distinguishing fact and comment: to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
- Accountability: to rectify any published information which is found to be harmfully inaccurate.
- Independence: to be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
- Transparency: to attribute all information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative, attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.
- Restraint: to judge each situation involving the inevitable conflicts between the right to privacy, the public good and the public’s right to be informed in the light of common sense, humanity and the public’s rights to know.
- Originality: to use original content, language and phrasing. No plagiarizing.
Since the 60 Minutes newzine broke ground in the late 60’s, the delivery of news to the American public has shifted from strictly principled reporting of journalists like David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Howard K. Smith, and what we see from most other news coverage around the world, to a stage performance of news. Sixty Minutes and the prime time newzines that followed shifted news from strictly information to entertainment. Americans tune in to pretty faces and smooth, folksy delivery. Anchors and field reporters have become our friends. We notice what they wear to the distraction of what they say. The lone news anchor morphed into a team, usually a male/female duo who banter like siblings on a set that varies from techspacular to living room familiar—depending on what time of day.
On the heels of the prime time newzines, came the late night shows which crept innocently into the newssphere. Now, overworked and disenchanted people collapse in front of TVs and tablets to get their news cloaked in comedy and satire. We love our media talent: our Lettermans, Stewarts, Colberts and Olivers. We don’t expect sanitized news as much as we expect satirical, funny or exciting news. We love seeing our anchors out in the field, hanging onto a lamp post during a hurricane, dodging sniper fire in the cobblestone streets of someone else’s neighborhood. We don’t want to hear what they say, we want to see how they say it. Instead of delivering the news, our anchors and reporters have become the news—celebrities to be interviewed by other celebrities for a spellbound and tragedy-numb audience.
So, Brian Williams trapped himself with his own puffed up reporting. Was this an honest mistake as his defenders claim, or was it the worst possible case of a trusted reporter lying through his teeth to look good to his audience? Is his six-month suspension without pay enough of a penalty for his “mistake”?
More important to me is what does this affair tell us about our news? Are we, in our demands for entertainment, partly responsible for pushing our journalists beyond the boundaries of professional journalism? Is it ethical for a journalist to sit on the comfy late-night set of an entertainment show as the “featured guest of the evening?” What happened to journalists serving public interest with verifiable truth and accuracy, accountability, fairness,transparency, and independence? Have we forced journalists to be pretty faces, constantly dependent upon keeping us, their audience entertained and their ratings up?
jaysentrueblood said:
this is probably one of the principle, if not the sole, reasons I do not watch the news. I do not know who I can trust to give me the correct information and an unbiased view of the facts. It seems that every news show is neither fair nor balanced and all that claim either are lying through their teeth and have won the right to call themselves entertainment rather than news…but still gets to have the tag “news channel” on their television station.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
So true. And because it’s all entertainment and because the “news” is owned by a few multi-billion dollar companies, it’s all about the ratings. Hero reporters and beautiful faces sell more copy/viewers.
LikeLike
sybil said:
And your news readers are all so “pretty”. I am happy that Peter Mansbridge (who reads the news on the CBC and has Walter-Cronkite -like- credibility here in Canada is balding and does not wear a toupe. We allow our news readers to age and (sometimes) they even appear to be from other ethnic groups (Ian Hanomansing) http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/content/abouttheshow/correspondents/ian_hanomansing.html
I’d be interested in your impressions of Canadian news reporting VS U.S. reporting.
Must confess that I’m sad to hear that Jon Stewart is going to be folding up his tent soon too. His and Colbert’s sense of humour are very “Canadian” — irreverent, left-leaning, cheeky boys that they are.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
I rarely actually “see” CBC news, Sybil. I am somewhat limited to what our PBS station provides. I do, however, listen to CBC fairly regularly on satellite radio and find the reporting to be much more serious, to the point, and unfettered by emotional draw strings.
I wouldn’t have so much against John Stewart and Stephen Colbert if they were viewed by Americans as a source of sarcastic entertainment. But I fear that too many people get ALL their news information from these clearly entertainment venues. They lack depth and context and, as always, they are all about the guy spouting, not about the real events and background to the events.
LikeLike
sybil said:
I had hoped that folk would already know about the issues and then just enjoy the humourous commentary of Colbert and Stewart.
I have CBC Radio One on much of the day. Good interviews, interesting research and a left-leaning bias which is why our P.M. is trying to cut federal funding to it.
Sigh …
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Canadians know the issues…as noted in the demise of your FOX news station. Americans don’t know the difference between news and entertainment. What results is blatant hyperbole in all political discussions.
I listen almost exclusively to the public radio station here, which is much as you describe Radio One…right down to funding issues. Our public tv and radio programs have already been almost divorced from federal support. I do sometimes listen to CBC or BBC when I’m in the car and have Satellite radio. It’s an interesting break from the norm.
LikeLike
Glenda Marie Talbutt said:
Even before watching your attached video of the discussion between The Young Turks, but now even more so, I found it difficult to find fault with Brian’s retelling of the event. I don’t think he lied at all. He just remembered an event a little differently than some other people did. Guess what? That is human nature. If 10 people witness an automobile accident, you will get 10 slightly different (and some aspects very different) versions of the same event.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
I pretty much agree, Glenda. The way his story evolved through the years made me also reflect on my own life stories. Anyone who has ever time-traveled with a group of old friends or relatives has experienced how differently we all remember things. The “truth” is somewhat ephemeral anyway, but seen through the lens of time, it grows even foggier. Even if Williams had willfully distorted the facts, I find it ironic that he takes the heat while power mongers like the Koch brothers can run amok with the truth and never suffer the consequences.
All that said, I still think reporters should not be the focus of the story. They should be the eyes and mouth of the story. Sometimes 1st person stories have more impact and are more engaging, but that may be because we have forgotten how to listen to news without it being dressed up as entertainment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bryan Hemming said:
I try to get my international news from as many sources as possible. For TV news US mainstream media sources tend to come off the worst. RT, the Russian provider comes off as being one of the best, which might be why politicians in the US and UK are trying to get it banned. Even then, to get the real news one has to dig very deep. Internet sources can very good indeed, but you have to be discerning, which means you have to know a lot about the countries and subjects being discussed before you read or view them.
For local information on a variety of subjects throughout the world I trust sites like yours, which reinforce my opinion that the world is still populated by a huge number of basically good and honest people.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
RT! I’ve never heard or seen Russian Television. Is it subtitled or are you also fluent in Russian, along with your other many talents?
The blogashere has been an amazing window into the intimate spaces of different cultures. I am continually amazed by what is available to those of us who are curious enough to care about other people and how they live and what their life hurdles consist of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bryan Hemming said:
RT is available on the internet here in Spain, you just tap it into your computer. But then I read this. http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/usa-blocks-russias-television.html.
I don’t know whether it refers to all means of receiving it in the US, but it does suggest something rather sinister might be going on.
RT may present a different point of view, but it isn’t nearly as biased as Fox News or CNN. And I don’t think either of them are banned in Russia. If viewers in Europe can be trusted to watch RT without being brainwashed, why can’t you?
My view is: treat the US public as adults and let them judge for themselves.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Hey, I finally got around to looking for the RT site. Got it with no problem at all. Bookmarked. Now I need to spend some time there. Hmmm. I wonder if the NSA has me on their radar now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
btg5885 said:
Linda, great post. In America, we want to be entertained and not informed. We have so few news watchers and readers, that it is easy to blow smoke past us. It is harder now to be truly informed as the source of the information is important to determine its veracity.
Network news tends to be shallow in coverage, as time is not allotted for in-depth reporting and issues are complex. Plus, the people who fund commercials and own stock in the parent companies can squelch real news that may hurt them. Also, you will see planted news to sell a show, a book, a movie, etc. that is produced by a sister company.
The book end pseudo news sources that cater to political parties (Fox and MSNBC) are not very news worthy either. Politifacts did a study in 2012, I think, that showed only 18% of the news reported on Fox was correct. They have improved that result, but still fall short of the majority. So, that means you are more informed by not watching. They make a lot of money dressing up the news though, so MSNBC tries to follow suit, but both sources should be discounted for what they are – homers.
I find my news from multiple sources online, in print, on radio and on screen. BBC World News America, PBS Newshour, NPR and multiple others. When they have a conflict of interest with a funder, they note that. But, they tend to report the news, have credible experts and data and do something unique – they tell their guests to be civil and let the other person speak. They also have time to address complex issues.
Williams got in trouble by embellishing the truth. It reminded me of Stephen King who noted the story called “The Body” was largely true, but he did take author’s license to embellish for entertainment. Williams should know better, as the truth can be found out. And, it was.
The last issue is politicians are now in campaign mode at all times. They believe their own BS and use it as a source for making decisions. They dare not agree, or at least appear to agree, as it would harm their “elected persona” and voter base perceptions. We need news to be factual and more in depth for this reason – our politicians should listened to with a grain of salt. Williams’ doing what he did, places him more in camp with those pseudo news sources, who tend to invent the news. He must be better than that. We need him to be better than that.
Sorry for the diatribe. Good work, BTG
LikeLiked by 1 person
rangewriter said:
Never apologize for your opinions! I love em. Network news is crafted by ratings not by ethics in journalism. That’s a fact. And oh, my pet peeve is the yellers! I can’t bear to listen to “network” radio. Even the all music stations are peppered with DJs who feel compelled to yell and tell inane jokes. What does that say about the minds of people who DO listen to that crap? Apparently many people do, so I worry about us as a nation.
LikeLike
btg5885 said:
Thanks. My kids listen better when I whisper. Maybe we should pay attention to the softer speakers as they do not need to shout down the other opinions.
LikeLike
Doreen Pendgracs said:
Thx for this post, Linda. I will answer it from 2 perspectives: as a member of the media myself, and as a member of the public who is tired of manipulative journalism. When I went to college to study comm’ns, I quickly learned that I was not cut out for straight journalism. I was much more suited to feature writing in which I could include my opinions and personal thoughts. That’s fine, and I have built my career on sharing my opinions with my readers. They know that I tell them the truth, but that it’s my own interpretation of a situation, place, or product they are reading about.
But in the case of Brian Williams, he is a news anchor who is supposed to only report the facts. We are not expecting opinion or embellishment from him. He crossed the line and I feel he should lose his position as a news anchor because of it.
LikeLike
rangewriter said:
Thanks for weighing in. Your credentials and experience give you the perfect background to add great feedback. I agree that there should be a line between feature writers (and editorialists) and straight news delivery. We’ve so completely blended those lines that they no longer mean much any longer. What’s more, we’ve now blended the lines between news and entertainment. While I agree with you about Williams on one hand, I still feel that we, as news “users” have forced the blending of these important lines. I really think most consumers of news today, don’t even ask themselves whether or not they are getting news, opinion, or entertainment. If nothing else, perhaps this debacle can serve as a wake up call to us all.
LikeLiked by 1 person