By James Decker
Oh sure the news media could probably do a better job, but it's not
that bad. A few honest errors and a little sensationalism are understandable
in an age when it's all we can do to keep our young people interested
in current events. Besides, it's better than living in communist Russia,
right?
In rough terms, that's how the rationalization goes. It bespeaks
a failed confidence in television, radio, and print news media. It
hopes for but does not expect the news to be reported fairly, accurately,
and completely on a consistent basis. Understandably, we are reluctant
to bite the media hand that feeds us. If our news is wrong, then we
must be wrong. The faces, names, and voices we live with daily are
professional news people doing their best with limited time and resources.
And critical letters to the editor certainly do get published. But
rather than blowing-up the mainstream news media, the World Wide Web
has yielded some promising means to improve journalism. Beyond increased
access to newspapers around the world for different points of view,
a new dialectic has emerged where journalists are helping journalists
to detect patterns of bias, conflicts of interest, and (in the great
competitive spirit of American enterprise) even bring to light specific
instances of censorship, profiteering, and intimidation in the news
industry.
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting is a media watch group that does
significantly more with the World Wide Web than republish it's bi-monthly
magazine. Besides broadcasting an Internet radio show, FAIR organizes
issues on its Web site according to region, topic, or specific media
outlet. Wondering if this "Channel One" shown to your kids
in school is respectable? Does the latest John Stossel report make
you want to re-read Pinnochio? Or does the AOL / Time Warner merger
seem like too big a topic to tackle on your lunch hour? FAIR can point
you to the issues and back them up with what evidence they themselves
have found. Who are they? You'll find names and personal email addresses,
and no outside advertising. The bias and purpose of FAIR are not difficult
to detect. You can compensate as needed while you read or listen,
but even in your disagreements you'll find that the news becomes something
you listen to critically again. Never been one to write letters to
the editor? If you subscribe to FAIR's free Action Alert service,
on occasion you will be alerted to particularly egregious errors or
oversights in mainstream media. FAIR will direct you to the article
and state their objections with information about who to contact if
you choose. By timing your letter with the letters of others, something
strange happens. The news editors and journalists take notice. In
fact, they respond to criticize your criticisms and to offer explanations.
In short, a dialogue occurs! No, I'm not kidding. You've got to see
it.
Most recently, FAIR criticized the New York Times for failing to
adequately cover protestors at the Bush inauguration. The Times response
"[…] In general, we devote more space to events, developments
and situations than to demonstrations protesting (or supporting) the
events, developments and situations. One reason for this is that the
demonstrations are staged events, designed to be covered."
FAIR's analogized this argument to the argument " that there
was no reason to cover the anti-Vietnam War movement because the war
itself was being fully reported. Or refusing to cover the civil disobedience
arrests around the Diallo shooting because the shooting itself had
been in the news." That the inauguration itself is a staged event
designed to be covered was another salient point in FAIR's response.
In this spirit, readers of the NYTimes and of FAIR engage in more
thoughtful and purposeful reading, understanding, and participation
in civil society. For worst-case real-life scenarios of why FAIR and
organizations like it should be let in to your email vision, look
into FAIR's annual 'best of' report entitled "Fear and Favor
2000: How Power Shapes the News". For those who see FAIR as so
much liberal ranting, consider the method more than the magazine.
Consider informed dialogue as an alternative to the dumbing-down of
news. Consider that journalism ought not to be just one more chicken
in the Nielsen ratings pecking order. Oh, and if you don't believe
small groups of letter writers can make big noises, call up your public
school librarian and ask how Harry Potter and Huck Finn got scared
from the shelf to the drawer.