The Value – And Peril – Of Media Criticism
It was also the kind of program that can't help but lead one to reflect on where things stand in the media business today. And not just because it was immediately followed by "A Dr. Phil Primetime Special: Caged?" (Which, to be fair, might have been perfectly fine. I didn't watch it.)
I'm not going to get into whether or not the news is better or worse than it used to be – we've been there before. But I do want to discuss the impact of the rise of media criticism, which has become an ever-increasing part of the American media landscape. In the past 40 years, we've seen the debate over the Pentagon Papers and the characterization of the press as "nattering nabobs of negativism" (and worse), as well as the rise of mainstream media blogs like this one and the increasing influence of well-funded partisan media criticism outfits and self-appointed media watchdogs.
To understand the impact of this media criticism community, consider the defining moment in Cronkite's career: His decision to characterize the Vietnam conflict as a "stalemate" and urge open negotiations with the North Vietnamese on the air. As the Museum of Broadcast Communications notes, "Many observers, including presidential aide Bill Moyers, speculated that this was a major factor contributing to President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to offer to negotiate with the enemy and not to run for President in l968."
Now consider NBC News' decision in late 2006 to begin referring to the situation in Iraq as a "civil war." The decision was immediately assailed as politically-motivated by those who feel that NBC, like the other mainstream media outlets, is hopelessly liberal. NBC made a big issue out of its decision, stressing that it came after "careful consideration." There was major debate about the appropriateness of the term and the agenda and intentions of those using it.
For the most part, this debate is worth having. The knowledge that they are being watched means that journalists have extra incentive to make responsible choices. And the lack of a vacuum, along with the proliferation of media outlets, means that no one will ever again have the kind of power that Cronkite did – which is probably a good thing. The "Evening News" anchor wielded his influence over public opinion responsibly, but if a newsman were to attain that sort of power again, we might not be so lucky.
There is also a downside to putting every decision a journalist makes under a microscope, however. Reporters are now tempted to make sure their coverage won't offend partisan sensibilities, even if an accurate report might be offensive to those sensibilities. And they have increasing incentive to be less assertive than they would if they didn't have to fear a partisan blogopshere calling for their scalp.
I'm not suggesting that we'd be better off simply allowing journalists to do their work without anyone keeping an eye on them – Public Eye, after all, is all about transparency, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe in the site's mission. But I do think there is a risk for journalists in paying too much attention to what the media critics are saying. In the end, I don't think we're better off if journalists withhold what they believe to be the truth because they worry that a large chunk of the population might not like it. And I hope that news consumers can accept that every factual assertion that doesn't square with their worldview isn't necessarily a manifestation of bias on the part of those bringing the news.