When Balance Overrides Principle

In J-School, it can feel like we’re taught to adhere to maintaining balance at all costs. But never did I think about how, in our attempt to achieve “balance,” we could override our most primary objective, to Seek The Truth.

In our class discussions, we looked at some examples where this so called balance was actually hurting the way journalists reported on stories. One of these examples sparked an ¨ah-ha¨ moment for me. It was the example of the Iraq War coverage, and they brought on one democrat and one republican to talk about the war. Had I not thought about this further, I would of considered this an appropriate form of trying to stay objective. But looking at it after our discussions, I see this attempt to show balance was actually a false balance. Both sides were for the war. In trying to maintain this balance, the media actually skewed the story. If they were trying to strike a balance, they would then need someone who is pro-war and someone who’s against it. In this case, I see the media’s attempts at “balance” as more of a cover to silence voices against the war.

This problem still exists even today. On Fox News, you’ll hear the justification of approving the Keystone pipeline, by stating that the majority of democrats and republicans are for it. This is not seeking the truth. Same with airstrikes in Syria. Although it’s a little different situation than the war in Iraq, I have not seen a real anti-war argument given much time, if any, on CNN against these strikes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4pAIyo-uYk (Republican/Dem Keystone)

Another example we talked about that helped me understand this idea of a false balance, was with the civil rights movement and how some of the media, when talking about segregation, would bring on someone who supported segregation and one against. Striking this “balance” was not appropriate because this caused the truth to be muddled. The truth was that segregation was wrong but instead, they choose to approach the issue with a “balanced” approach, which makes it seem like both sides have legitimacy. Looking back now, do those outlets want to admit that they were giving people who supported segregation a voice? I doubt it.

My main problem with the media sticking to this rule of “balance”, is that if you’re truly going to try to make that your brand, then do it for ever story. Don't pick and choose. If you’re going to sell yourself as being “objective”, even if it means that the actual truth is missing from stories, then do it for every story. We see this in cases like Trayvon Martin or ferguson, where the first thing to be mentioned was race.

However, I don't think keeping “balance” should be the highest priority in reporting. In fact, I think it’s dangerous because of the examples I gave. When we as journalists forgo our core principles in our attempts to be objective, we lose sight of our main mission, to seek the truth, and that’s a very dangerous thing.

But I Thought Wal-Mart Was My Friend

I like to stay up to date with politics. It's what I want to cover as a journalist. The presentation on ALEC really threw me off in terms of what I actually thought I knew about my government and the corporations. Hearing about ALEC and how some of the companies I support financial are actually working to create bills, whether I support them or not, was deeply disturbing. I know about lobbyist, and of course I expect companies to spend millions of dollars lobbying congress on behalf of their interests. But hearing about how this group, which is supported largely by corporations, is essentially drafting bills with the stamp of "democracy" to legitimize it, was pretty disgusting.

If you look at ALEC's mission statement, it says, "works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America's state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public."

     From that, would you know that ALEC encourages corruption in congress? Would we have any idea it’s possible to trace some of the most controversial bills back to ALEC? Had people like Lisa Graves not investigated and exposed this, corporations might continue to be a part of ALEC without the people even knowing. Google, Facebook are just some of the big companies that have had to pull their support because of people like Graves.

If you look further into ALEC Exposed, we see how Wal-Mart is using its money to put shoplifters in jail no matter the cost of the item the person stole. So not only is Wal-Mart’s money helping to fill our jails, it also helped get pass the stand your ground law. 

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Shoot_First_Bills

From what I remember, this is not something the main stream media covers. When I did my own search of ALEC on YouTube, I saw clips from DemocracyNow! clearly talking about ALEC's wrong doings. This was in 2011. Johnny Oliver from HBO did touch on it but it was in 2014. Nowhere in my Google search did I find ABC, NBC, CBS having covered this, although I could have missed something.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4q4meltt9I (DemocracyNow)

 My ABC News pride took a hit when I typed ABC News ALEC in a Google search. The first thing I got was Alec Baldwin Stories. 

Whether I want to admit it or not, we are longer in the time of Peter Jennings where hard news trumped celebrity news.

Overall, I think learning about ALEC and the investigation behind it goes behind some themes we have talked about in class, such as how the mainstream is less willing to target groups like this because some of the corporations that sponsor the groups, sponsor them as well through advertiser dollars.

Iraq For Sale: Mainstream Finally Catches On

I was fascinated by our talk about Iraq For Sale. Less about the movie itself, although I'm sure it was good, but about how it was an example of the mainstream being forced to cover something that they initially didn't want to cover.

With my research for my DemocracyNow! paper and discussions we had in class, I was able to see how the media was not giving much negative press about Iraq and were encouraging people by beating the drums of war. Even my favorite reporter, Martha Raddatz, was doing her stand up on the deck of an aircraft carrier. I didn't realize it at the time, but this all contributed to the gung ho, military propaganda we were being fed, whether she realized it or not. In terms of broadcasting, it was a great stand up that was demonstrating to her viewers something, but it was contributing to this gung ho lets go to war attitude.

The reason discussing Iraq For Sale in class brought this up for me was because it was almost like I had to pinch myself, watching network broadcasters reporting on this movie that criticized something they once supported. When I grew up watching the mainstream, it was around the 9/11 period. I remember being bombarded with images of middle eastern men with the graphic terrorist under them. I remember staying up late on a school night to watch the "Shock and Awe" campaign by the military. Seeing that clip of networks reporting on the movie just threw me off a bit. Here was the mainstream actually covering this. I remember in class I said something like, "wait, did they actually cover this?"

But it all goes into the idea that the mainstream eventually is forced into covering somthing when public opinion turns. Had it not been for the turn in public opinion for the war and indi outlets like democracy now slowly over time helping to keep the public informed, we might not be seeing the mainstream report on Iraq for Sale.

So although the movie is extremely insightful and has many things that places like DemocracyNow! were reporting on very early on, such as misconduct of by private armies like Blackwater, for me, seeing this turnaround by the mainstream, was an ah-ha moment for me. Yes, I've blogged about examples in history were the mainstream media finally covered something after the public demanded it, but this example was current. It was something I lived through.

That being said, with polls showing support for airstrikes, I've noticed that the mainstream has been doing some of the same things that were doing in the invasion of Iraq. I saw Martha Raddatz back on that aircraft carrier deck doing her stand up, just 10 years older and a different enemy. Before this class, I didn't realize that this example was just another way to beat the drums of war. War is a made for TV moment. Coverage of Iraq for Sale by the mainstream allowed me to finally make a personally connection with the theme that Indi Outlets help inform the public on things that aren't being covered, forcing mainstream to overstretching,

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/us-airstrikes-isis-syria-expanded-25815966

GoFundMe Journalism

        I've heard about websites like GoFundMe and Kickstarter that help people raise money for a certain cause. But before class, I hadn't thought about its potential to journalist as seen with Beconreader. The idea that journalists essentially work directly for the people is one that we've discussed in Indi Media, but I feel that these new websites take this to a new level.

          In class we talked about how that guy who was funded by his readers to go to New Hampshire and cover the election. These websites allow for a greater implementation of this concept, of readers choosing what stories they want covered. Looking at some examples, we can see the power in people being involved in these projects. It also intertwines with the idea we talked about how when people invest into something, they feel more connected, more committed to it.

     The first example I looked at was one of the most successful was a project called DecodeDC. If you look at the summery, it reads, "DecodeDC is a new way to cover Washington. We are tired of the same old red vs. blue stories, the exhausting horse-race coverage of elections. We yearn for stories with depth, on issues that really matter."  This summery brings a concern that we've talked about in class. That the mainstream is ignoring, or not covering adequately some issues, congress for example. If you look at the results of this program, people agree!  Its pledge goal was $75,000. It received a whopping $100,724, way above the goal pledge. Also, they made it a point to make sure the money was going mainly for the actual stories, not as profit. "Most important, the seed money will keep our chins just above water -- enough to eat ramen only a few nights a week."

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1832422021/decodedc?ref=38k4lm

      Some are more focused but receive just as little or inadequate media coverage as the first one. This one was called The Island of Windows, which shed light on a deadly disease. In this, they describe exactly what they will use the money for, saying, "We're asking for your support to travel to another region affected by the disease and report on our findings. Sasha plans to write a series of articles exploring this new international threat, and Anna will produce a photo gallery and video illustrating its human consequences.  You will get a first look at our materials from the field and updates as the story unfolds, and we will acknowledge all of our backers on the Center for Public Integrity website." This project was smaller but still was able to earn the money needed by a 100 backers who felt this story was important. 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/83367133/the-island-of-widows?ref=38k4lm

        These stories are interesting, they're fresh. They are what’s not being talked about. But what's most important is that the people seem to be supporting this model of controlling what they want to know about by funding certain projects. I think this will only continue to grow as we see this kind of, pay for what you want approach not only in journalism but TV. But the difference in this case is that this allows independent journalists to get funding and do work, since money has often been a problem for Indi publications.

Looking Beyond My Tainted Views On Dissidence

Reading chapter 3 in Voices of Revolution drew a lot of  connections for me between the abolition and women's rights moment, but also gave me a greater appreciation for suffragist and dissident journalists.

I guess by watching the mainstream media, I've received a negative connotation with dissident journalism. For example, Glenn Greenwald and his articles about Snowden. I remember in class you showed us that interview with Greenwald where the interviewer was suggesting that his reports were encouraging law breaking. I mean, I could see how seems she had an agenda.

The reason this chapter made me see dissident journalism differently is because women's rights are something that really hits home for me. As I said before, my mom was the breadwinner in our family. She was the one who went to work everyday while my father got me ready for school. Having women in charger, or in power, has been something that is natural to me. I was brought up that way. Therefore, I admire many women who hold positions of power because it's something I'm used too.

So, when I read about how a lot of these things dissident journalists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton were fighting for, actually impacted the way I was raised, I decided to take a closer look. In a society back then, it wouldn't have been accepted for women to be the authority figures in the family structure. These journalist were the people who encouraged women to not accept the limitations put on them by society, but instead encouraged them have a voice and speak out.

The other thing I noticed when reading this was some of the struggles the women's right movement shared with the abolition movement. For example, on page 39, it talks about how the media gave the women's rights movement almost no coverage at first. When they did get coverage, it was negative. The "revered" New York Times had an article out called, "Women's Wrong Convention,"which argued that women already had enough political power.

The other similarity I saw was the financial struggle to keep these movements going. Since they used newspapers like The Revolution to get out their messages, it required people to be able to afford it. But since women usually didn't control the money, it was hard for some to get the paper since their husbands probably wouldn't be too keen on their spouse reading something that encouraged them to get out the house.

Like the abolition moment, I noticed how there was also a split between moderates and full women's rights advocates. We see this with Lucy Stone who founded the Woman's Journal, which didn't focus on as many broad issues like The Revolution, such as equal pay, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

So although I came in to this course with a tainted view of "dissident journalists," by reading how they were one of the reasons why my kind of upbringing was possible, allowed me to see beyond the perception the main stream media has given me about dissident journalist and acknowledge the need for them at times.

Disappointed

Although I wrote about the North Star in my paper, reading chapter 2 in Voices of Revolution helped me see the importance The Liberator had in starting a national dialog about Anti-Slavery.

As I wrote in my paper, it upset me to know how many Norther Publications either supported slavery or didn't voice criticism against it since I like to think the North was progressive, at least that was what I was taught in history class.

That being said, on page 29, I read about how it took the New York Tribune 20 years (20 YEARS!!!) to agree with Garrison on abolition. The Gazette even criticized his work. Although Garrison's approach to abolition differed from Douglass, by reading about the effects his paper had in growing the abolition movement, I realized how important it was to start some kind of dialog, even if it may not have been the one I wanted, such as arguing for full abolition. Another thing that disappointed me was that, not only did the mainstream media largely not support abolition in the beginning, but when someone like Garrison did voice support, the mainstream shunned him.

But because Garrison was able to keep that dialog going for so long, he was able to shift public opinion. As the chapter states, the majority of people were for slavery and that is easy to understand when the majority of the mainstream media was not shedding light on the horrors of slavery until much later.

Most of all, this chapter reinforced the notion that independent media had and still has an important role to play in our society. I am not saying I am ready to call it quits and stop reading and watching the mainstream media, but reading this chapter really made me feel afraid of what would happen had outlets like The Liberator and the North Star chosen to follow the dialog of the mainstream.

So, although I was raised watching the mainstream media with my dad and would work there if I was offered a job, I can't easily dismiss Indi outlets as I once might have because looking back at history, you can see just how influential these outlets were in starting conversations that would change public opinion and force the media to cover it.

My Mom, Target, and the Importance of Labor Weeklies

Chapter One in Voices of Revolution really hit home for me due to the closeness the topic of labor unions had to my family.

My mom was a nurse for 40 years and was very active in unionization (She is now retired). As a kid growing up in NYC, I remember her coming home exhausted and would talk about her union meetings and how they were working on improving things for nurses. Sometimes it was fighting for better benefits and contract or just making sure there was a healthy nurse-patient ratio. A few times she would shanghai me and my dad to go picket with her union outside the hospital.

I remember when I got my first job at Target and during the training session we had to watch a video about the negative effects of unionizing. I remember my mom telling me when I got the job, "make sure you join a union the first change you get." I was 18 at the time......The point is, unionizing has been something I am very familiar and by realizing that, had these weeklies not pushed for these kind of reforms that gave power to the labor movements, my mom might not have been protected in advocating for better working conditions.

With this chapter, I was able to see how the mainstream media of the time was actually part of the elites, which was disturbing to me because journalism is supposed to advocate for the people, give voice to the voiceless. In this chapter, we see how out of touch and elitist the mainstream media at the time really was.

Not only was the main stream media completely out of touch with the problems of the working class, but even when it did realize the need, it worked with the elites to suppress the working class attempts at getting political representation. We see this on page 18 when it describes the onslaught of attacks the movement received by papers like the Daily Advertiser and Evening Journal to name a few, which accused them of encouraging "infidelity" among the people.

Another things that really made me see the importance of these weeklies was their push to end imprisonment as a form of justice for not paying your debts. As a millennial, the idea seems crazy. Most people I know who graduated college are in DEBT! Imagine what it would be like had the weeklies not been a force in getting ride of a law like that. How many people sent to jail would it have taken for law makers, media, elites, to realize this is wrong?

Overall, this chapter reminded me that there is not just one side to history. I thought I knew my history of of the industrial revolution here in the U.S but after reading this chapter, I realize that there was so much I didn't.