By Bradley J. Fikes
Its reporters and editors lean left. Of course, it’s no secret at all. The great majority of journalists have left-wing views. But as a card-carrying media member, people like me are not supposed to mention that fact. If we don’t tell the public, they’ll never figure it out.
The public has long seen through that threadbare pretension. But Post editor Marcus Brauchli has stuck his head back in the sand again. He’s ordered his staff to stop posting anything smacking of personal political opinions on social media.
Brauchli’s order was prompted by the politically oriented Twitter postings of Raju Narisetti, described by the Post’s ombudsman as one of the newspaper’s top editors.
The most offending Tweet of all?
As the ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, says, “As one of two managing editors, he’s responsible for The Post’s features content and oversees its Web site. But he also sits in on news meetings and occasionally gets involved in “hard” news.”
One might think that anyone managing the Web site would continually be dealing with hard news. But that’s a print-centric delusion for later. The real howler is Narisetti’s (doubtless Post-imposed) description of the problem:
Narisetti said today he now realizes that his tweets, although intended for a private audience of about 90 friends and associates, were unwise.
They were “personal” observations, he said. “But I also realize that… seeing that the managing editor of The Post is weighing in on this, it’s a clear perception problem.”
In other words, if Posties don’t openly disclose their political views, there won’t be a “perception” of bias.
Ostrich, meet sand.
One of Narisetti’s politically oriented Tweets that raised Brauchli’s ire reads:
“We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not. But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad.”
Those of you who aren’t blind to reality will be somewhat less than surprised that a top Washington Post editor takes the Democrats’ position on health care, or that he’d rather run up deficits for health care than for wars. This is standard journo-think. Individually, it’s harmless, but it creates problems when an overwhelming majority of journalists think this way.
If we had true diversity of thought in newsrooms, the issue of bias wouldn’t be so troublesome. The left, right and center, along with some Libertarians to mix things up (being a Libertarian myself, I like to say that), would keep each other honest. Groupthink would not form. But with today’s ideological monoculture in journalism, it’s easy for journalists to get so far removed from the public they’re supposed to cover as to have no clue how people think outside their insular circles.
Failing that, liberal journalists would be well-advised to seek out conservatives and conservative media to educate themselves about what other people think, and why. It would help eliminate the caricature of horn-wearing righties that many journalists have. With blogs and yes, Twitter, seeking out these viewpoints is easier than ever. And from my own experience talking with the right, conservatives respect left-of-center journalists who don’t hide their ideology far more than they do other journalists who pretend their biases are objective reality.
But the Post under Brauchli has gone backward. Instead of confronting the issue of bias head-on, Brauchli is trying to sweep it under the rug. That might work with a few specks, but not with a mountain. He just makes the Post look ridiculous, as in the ombudsman’s daintified description of the problem:
In today’s hyper-sensitive political environment, Narisetti’s tweets could be seen as one of The Post’s top editors taking sides on the question of whether a health-care reform plan must be budget neutral. On Byrd, his comments could be construed as favoring term limits or mandatory retirement for aging lawmakers. Many readers already view The Post with suspicion and believe that the personal views of its reporters and editors influence the coverage. The tweets could provide ammunition.
Love that “could!”
Of course Narisetti is taking sides. Of course the personal views of its reporters and editors influence the coverage. Deciding whether or not to write a story is soaked in the journalist’s views, as the late media critic Cathy Seipp wrote.
Two years ago, for an American Journalism Review story on blogging, I interviewed Washington Post associate editor and senior correspondent Robert Kaiser, co-author of a ponderous book about the media called The News About the News. “I read things I think I should know, not other people’s opinions about what I should know,” he said loftily, explaining why he doesn’t read blogs.
But every single thing we read in the paper, including hard news, is the product of other people’s opinions about what we should know. Problems happen when those in charge believe in their own objectivity so much they know longer know that one simple fact.
Seipp’s explanation underscores why so many leftist journalists were hot for the Jeff Gannon story about a journalist in the White House who was also a male prostitute, but dismissed the ACORN corruption story. (Of course, now we know those lefty journalists were blind to the facts).
Of course, righties have the same issue of bias, but it’s not really a 50-50 issue. Since leftists dominate newrooms, leftism is the default ideology. Say “I think George Bush was a better president than Clinton,” in a room full of journalists and you’ll see what I mean.
If journalists disclosed their political views and answered questions from the public about them, that would be true accountabilty journalism. Pretending that one’s political views don’t matter and refusing to discuss them is denialism and cluelessness about what the public sees as wrong with journalism.
But then again, Post editor Brauchli already demonstrated his cluelessness when he became editor of the Wall Street Journal, foolishly believing Rupert Murdoch’s assurances that he wouldn’t interfere on the editorial side and would honor the agreement he made to buy the paper from the Bancroft family.
I’m sorry for the Post’s reporters they have such a naive person as editor.
And I also wonder if the tweets Narisetti posted on his since-deleted Twitter account were really the most offensive to Brauchli. Google cache preserved one that the Post didn’t see fit to publish published far down in the article that I would have highlighted:
“For flagbearers of free speech, some newsroom execs have the weirdest double standards when it comes to censoring personal views.”
(UPDATE: Disclaimer: These are my own views, and not necessarily those of my employer, the North County Times.)
Bradley, he probably doesn’t even realize that deficits caused by wars come to an end while those from domestic programs like health care go on forever.
Good point, Michael, and that’s an example of the benefit of having an ideologically diverse newsroom. Someone would have pointed out that logical fallacy to him.
Brad, smart insight and beautifully expressed. As a fellow card carrying Libertarian, it always warms my heart to see our POV represented. Sure, we have our biases too. We question everything!
In my world on the other side of the media equation in public relations, social media has increased the call on us to be the catalyst for the free flow of information between those we represent and their audiences, and to do so with transparency. Proactive disclosure and the willingness to listen only helps build trust. Social media gives us the enormous benefit of feedback. If we are smart enough to listen, we can be responsive to our audience’s needs and be even more successful whether it’s selling a product, asking for donations or getting your vote.
In turn, the audience values being heard, and is more willing to listen to us and engage us in a positive way as well.
The danger with media bias isn’t that it’s left or right… it’s claiming it doesn’t exist at all which is nonsense. When it goes unacknowledged, the reader/listener/viewer cries “BS!” I’d rather know for a fact where a reporter or editor stands, and filter the information accordingly. That’s perfectly fair.
Until recently, the news media has exhibited tremendous arrogance about their role as information gatekeepers. Now they are losing control of the message and increasingly being challenged. They don’t much like it. It’s so typical of a control freak mentality to tighten your grip when threatened. Too bad, because many enlightened reporters and editors are learning that a partnership with your audience in disseminating information is incredibly valuable. You’ve just increased the brainpower aimed at any given story or issue a thousand fold!
Thank you, Gayle!
There’s a lesson from new media pioneer Dan Gillmor that I have taken to heart: the public, collectively, knows more than journalists do. And by tapping into the public, my reporting has become much more productive.
It’s kind of an issue of “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” I agree with your argument that disclosing one’s own biases actually increases trust. But we journalists have to do it in an appropriate way — either in conversation with sources and other individuals, or in honest statements that are aimed at skeptics.
When a journalist posts stuff like this on the Web, he loses control of it, and it gets seized by critics and held up as evidence of an epidemic, even if it’s an isolated example. Bradley’s arguing that it Narisetti is not merely an isolated example in the professional news media as a whole, and he may be right about that, but the journalists in one newsroom can have an entirely different mix of political viewpoints from those in the next. I’d point to Bradley’s employer and my former employer, the North County Times, as a good example of mixed viewpoints — left, right, center and libertarian. Such publications risk their reputation for balance when their reporters go off on personal rants like Narisetti did.
More importantly, these rants can create or reinforce dominant viewpoints within the user’s networks of Twitter followers and Facebook friends, which have disproportionately large numbers of journalists. WaPo isn’t going to be an objective news source if its individual journalists are pushing their opinions on one another as forcefully as Narisetti did.
Finally, on a personal note, I saw and continue to see journalism as an extension of a personal commitment to understanding the human beings around me and dealing with them fairly and objectively, so I try to be circumspect in expressing my opinions, lest I poison the waters for everyone like Narisetti does.