Beauty isn’t alone in the eye of the beholder.
In the news game, how we perceive people and events affects how we are perceived. But in all cases, these are merely judgment calls, as subjective to each individual as a French figure skating judge’s evaluation of the Canadian duo at the Olympics last week. “To each his own,” meaning that when it comes to news, it’s not a matter of black and white, but different shades of gray as varied as those in our Pacific Northwest winter sky.
The news media – as the preeminent communication source of our time – has a certain control on how we think about the world around us. But readers’ and viewers’ own judgment of each of the different types of news media also affects their perception.
To that end, the Online News Association commissioned a study to determine the credibility of digital news outlets in the public eye. The findings were positive for those of us working in online news, as Internet users said that online news is about as credible as news they obtain from other, more traditional sources. Out of the 1,000 Internet users and 1,500 journalists surveyed, 13 percent cited online news as their most trusted source of news.
Of course, the skeptical reader is wondering about the credibility of the traditional news media.
Well, how do we judge news coverage? Likely, it’s different from person to person, as subjective as the news selection process in hundreds of newsrooms across the country.
Think about this: Most newspaper readers say they want to see “good” news in the paper. But most newspaper readers, studies show, read the “bad” news – murders, car accidents, scandals. So what’s a paper to print? The news that readers say they want, or the news that readers will actually read?
There are studies and surveys conducted every year to assess news coverage of politics, race, gender, age and many other breakdowns.
The fact remains, however, that news is inherently subjective. What may be important to me may not mean squat to you. Astronauts walked in space today. I think that’s pretty freaking amazing. It won’t make the front page of any newspaper in the country tomorrow. Michelle Kwan or Apolo Ohno will be there, though. Which is more rare, winning a gold medal or walking in space?
This is just one example of the countless decisions made every day by reporters and editors. And where they work has a lot to do with the decisions they make.
How someone views a news organization, and how that news organization views itself, is an important barometer. It may be time to erase the arbitrary journalistic baseline used in the past – comprehensive, objective coverage – even though they remain catchy phrases used in promotions. The baseline is different depending on what you are. For example, think of The New York Times, the National Enquirer, People Magazine, the Seattle Weekly, FOX News, and the Today Show. What do they have in common? Very little when it comes to the news decisions they make, yet all are lumped into the category of “news media.” Each appeals to a different audience, however, as a reader or viewer would expect something different from each of them.
Fairness and balance should be the baseline standards by which news organizations are judged. Objectivity isn’t possible, and frankly, people don’t want it. Walter Cronkite was revered as the evening news anchor whom millions of Americans trusted with the news, not because he was objective. He earned that trust by inserting a bit of himself into the news, and people liked it.
Recently, this conversation moved from graduate school classrooms to the bestseller lists, as evidenced by a new book by Bernard Goldberg, “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News.”
The book purports to expose, once and for all, the “liberal bias” in the news that conservatives have asserted for years. True, the news selection process lends itself to charges of liberal bias, with its penchant for heart-warming or heart-wrenching stories. But a political bias? Not when another charge frequently levied against news organizations is more grounded, that the selection of stories is based upon what will attract the most readers and viewers.
The game isn’t about pushing an agenda as much as it about growing market share.
Michael Jordan said it best, when asked why he wouldn’t voice his support for Democrat Harvey Gantt’s 1990 challenge of conservative North Carolina senator Jesse Helms. The Nike pitchman replied, “Republicans buy shoes, too.”
And read newspapers. And watch TV news. And visit online news sites.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
