Blogs

"Comfort the Afflicted" ... More?

By Matthew Felling

June 20, 2007 / 11:31 AM EDT / CBS News

(AP Photo/Bill Haber, File)

Last week it was reported that the BBC had hired an outside group to investigate whether or not they had a problem with ideologicial bias. My first thought was, "Wouldn't it be cool if every outlet could do that?" My second thought was "Well, did they find out?" According to the Telegraph's reporting on the study:

After a year-long investigation the report maintains that the corporation's coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.
But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.

This was echoed in the (rabbit hole alert) BBC's reporting of the BBC investigation of BBC content as well:

The BBC needs to take more care to ensure it is impartial, according to a report commissioned by the corporation.

That seemed about right to me: It's certainly reasonable, after all, to expect a reporter covering a story like this to let the facts speak for themselves and not cheerlead for one side or the other.

Then this morning's USA Today reported that CNN had made the internal decision to start, yes, guiding their viewers to a more active role in newsy problems. The article reported:

CNN plans to go beyond reporting the news by directing its viewers to charity and relief efforts involved in some of their stories.
Hurricane Katrina and the Asian tsunami proved to CNN that viewers want to respond to the news, Jim Walton, CNN Worldwide president, said Tuesday. The Impact Your World initiative begins on Wednesday to coincide with World Refugee Day.
CNN is setting up a special website with contact information for charities in categories like refugees and homelessness, poverty, natural disasters and homelessness. Viewers will be told about this site when CNN does relevant stories.

It's indeed an odd confluence of events that the week after a globally-recognized news powerhouse decides it's time to make sure its coverage of certain events doesn't seem like cheerleading, another one decides to point folks directly to charity and relief efforts. I have mixed feelings about this: It seems like if people "want to respond to the news," then the news story and their own initiative should suffice in getting them going. There's even this great new Web site called "Google" that could help.

I know what you're thinking – I'm sounding something like a Scrooge. How could anybody be against helping tsunami or hurricane victims? I'm not, of course. But taking these innocuous and proactive steps forward could lead news outlets down a path where they act as advocates and don't necessarily adequately cover the nuances of a particular issue. And then there's the troubling decision of which causes and charities they choose to endorse. Even something as seemingly as benign as telling people how to help, in the end, raises legitimate concerns about how far the news coverage should ultimately go.