(By Mike McVay) President Biden’s political future coming to an end, that of Kamala Harris’ rising, the attempted assassination of former President Trump, the recently completed Republican National Convention, and the upcoming Democratic National Convention appear to be lightning rod subjects that are providing more than enough content for media to cover.
The slant of these stories is clearer today than in previous years, and the introduction of opinion into some stories is blurring the line between Commentary and News – which ratchets up the growing mistrust Americans have in news sources.
Audience research that I’ve seen from several different sources continues to show what’s been the norm for the last few years. Radio is one of the most trusted sources for news. It also puts on display that the audience, be they conservative or liberal, want those in office to do what’s right for America, and not be extreme.
NBC’s Sunday news program, Meet the Press, shared research earlier this year that both political parties are unpopular and divided in the eyes of Americans. The New York Times found in their research that most Americans view the major political parties as two camps that bicker endlessly and fruitlessly over most issues. This belief has led to, as I’ve written about in the past, a situation where many “choose their news.” That audience prefers to live in an echo chamber more so than hearing stories that may not validate their beliefs.
Further degrading news credibility is public attempts to influence it. CNN’s Victor Blackwell exposed that reporter Andrea Lawful-Sanders of The Source shared that President Biden’s aides sent her approved questions ahead of her interview with him. Management at The Source claimed that they did not know the situation. This report came and went fairly quickly in the news cycle, likely because of the fear that self-reporting could bring dismissal of some. Lawful-Sanders is, in fact, no longer with the station.
Wisconsin host Earl Ingram also admitted to the same situation days later, so this is unfortunately not the lone occurrence. It’s something that Management, and especially Program and News Directors need to be conscious of if we’re to believe that leadership at The Source was truly unaware. The conundrum: do you supply your questions to a candidate or individual of interest before you conduct an interview if refusal to do so leads to cancellation? The answer is a rhetorical question; How important is credibility to your organization and you as a professional?
It should be no surprise that the credibility of news reporting is being called into question as electronic journalism is leaning into the political bent of its audiences. That is understandable when it comes to story selection as building and/or maintaining an audience is our charge. We are, after all, mercenaries. That does not mean that commentary or supposition has any place in news reporting or in an interview that is being presented as news. News is news and Commentary is not. It is Opinion. One should not masquerade as the other. That which is not news should never be identified as news.
We’ve all heard the phrase “Fake News.” Now we’re seeing more frequency of use of the counter phrase to that, which is “Fact-Based Journalism.” Describing news as fact-based definitely acknowledges that there is non-fact-based news. How does that not throw into question the credibility of all news? This is one more dimension that further degrades the value of news. The listener is faced with deciphering what’s Real and what’s Fake. This casts an even greater negative shadow on all news reporting and magnifies the question of credibility.
Remote News Service Founder and CEO Lesley Lotto has been vocal about the importance of remaining credible and unbiased when writing and delivering the news. She shared her thoughts: “We have to be so careful. Now more than ever, we should read at least 3 sources that essentially say the same thing. That way, we can be at least 90% sure that it’s true. It’s really sad, but we can’t just silo ourselves onto one side and not listen to the other.” She continued “We are living through remarkable times. Some of us are losing family members and friends over their beliefs. We have to be curious and listen. Especially as broadcasters, we have to be mindful about what we’re putting into the ether. My opinion stays inside my home, it never enters my studio.”
Lesley and I are hosting a Webinar on August 1st at 3:30pm Eastern where we will discuss Real News and the listeners’ perceptions about news ahead of the General Election. Sign up for News in the New Era of Communication here and join us to voice your opinion while having your questions answered. Then watch this space in next week’s Radio Ink for opinions and comments shared in a special review of the session.
Mike McVay is President of McVay Media and can be reached at [email protected]. Read Mike’s Radio Ink archives here.
Well framed, Mike. Traditionally, those of us who were trained in journalism professionally, were taught to check sources, be accurate and be as non-biased as humanly possible to let the listener, viewer or reader have the facts to be accurately informed. The primary motivation was to maintain the integrity and credibility of the news outlet.
There are cultural differences between what was and what is. Part of this has to do with a code of broadcast standards verses anything goes. It would seem there doesn’t appear to be as much emphasis on discipline to avoid bias at the colligate level of communication education as their used to be. Plus, there are so many non-professionals on the internet that almost make it impossible to resist the temptation for broadcast stations to counter react or emulate.
Bias in journalism is not new, it can be traced back hundreds of years. It was just not as widespread, and most people knew it was just propaganda newsletters. There was a least an attempt to avoid this with the rise of mass media, but it rather seems to have eroded do to increased media competition or just plain arrogance.
Resolution of this can be applied at both the training and management levels, but it will only be affective with the cooperation of ownerships, management and education institutions. The motivation should be credibility and trust by the audience. If you always give one side of an issue then you risk the potential of losing everyone else who disagrees, If the message is fair then they won’t kill the messenger.
It has long been the practice of politicians, government officials and even big wigs in private industry to request advance copies of questions. I see nothing wrong with the practice as long as they cannot vet them, i.e. choose what can or can’t be asked during an interview. Not everyone has a photographic memory, with every fact in a complex problem at their beck and call. And those, who are deep thinkers but are aging, might not have the quickest recall or best gift of gab even though the content is there.
If you view political interviews as beauty contests and you’re judging folks on their delivery style, the clothes they wear, the quality of their vocal cords, then you might not want to provide any help with content, preferring to continue to dumb down the American electorate.
Dianna: Well said. Love that you’re teaching a new generation and leading the conversation here. -M
You’ve said it before, Mike, and I appreciate your repetition: News is news and commentary is commentary.
I tell my classes, “Your opinion is your opinion; it should not be included in a news story or a newscast. The words ‘seems,’ ‘believes,’ ‘implies,’ ‘speculates’ have no business being in your newscast unless they’re included in an actuality. And even then, think twice about whether that actuality is really news. News deals with facts: this happened, this is happening, this is scheduled to happen.”
That’s not to say news people shouldn’t have an opinion about what they cover. As ABC’s Sam Donaldson once said, “If you don’t have an opinion, you don’t know anything.” But expressing that opinion in a newscast converts that news into commentary, and it should be identified as such.