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.