Watching the premiere of Aaron Sorkin’s “Newsroom” on HBO
prompted some questions I’m still pondering.
The title of this post is one of them.
Jeff Daniels’ character is an irascible cable news anchor, prone to fits
of pique and ready to issue a blistering rant at any moment. During one of the rants, excoriating the
current state of the news profession, Daniels’ character asserts that TV news
has everything to do with entertainment and diversion, and not with facts,
because today people chose their own set of facts.
The online publication “Gawker” asked Dan Rather – certainly
one of my least favorite anchormen of all time – to watch the HBO show and
comment. Among other things, Dumb Dan
said this of Sorkin’s portrayal of a TV newsroom, with the push and pull of
whether or not what they’re doing matters: “It's a fight that matters, not just
for journalists but for the country. It centers on whether news reporting is to
be considered and practiced — to any significant degree, even a little — as a
public service, in the public interest, or is to exist solely as just another
money-making operation for owners of news outlets.”
Well-said, Dan.
There are plenty of reporters – national and local – who
ferret out good stories and report them with little bias. I’m referring to the straightforward stuff
where facts are facts, and they’re not in dispute: somebody shot somebody,
somebody wrecked their car and got hurt, the city council passed a new
ordinance, a family needs financial help for an expensive operation for a
child, a local company is expanding operations – those sort of stories that
comprise the warp and woof of daily journalism.
But when it comes to getting at the truth of statements made
by public officials, private business owners/managers, and certainly political
candidates, I think Journalism has been falling down on the job for quite a
while. There’s a tendency to report
anything an official, a spokesman, or a candidate says, as “fact”. (The fact is, of course, they said it; I
think we can trust nearly every reporter to get that part right.) I have often used the lighthearted poke at
Journalism that goes “Candidate X says the earth is flat; the story is
headlined ‘Opinions on the shape of the earth vary’”.
No matter how stupid, inaccurate, or wrong the statement is,
it’s reported – and repeated – unchallenged.
Many reporters will say it’s merely their job to report the news
accurately, not to try and interpret it – that’s somebody else’s job. And that’s where I begin to have some
questions about that model.
Take the case of Tea Party darling Tommy Thompson, who is
doing his best to remake his image as a cordial consensus-builder (and a HUGE
tax-and-spender) into a tea party conservative.
Because he’s actually spent most of his time the past few years as a
lobbyist for huge health care corporations, he’s doing his best to distance
himself from the (accurate) image of being a “Washington insider” to being a
regular fellow, just like you and me, who has knowledge about how the health
care system works, and wants to reform it.
Here’s the image for Tommy’s online manifesto about health
care – but note that whenever he talks about it, he refers to his position as
“repealing Obama-Care”. (He’ll do that
all by himself, Tommy will, without the help of 99 other Senators or 435
Members of the House of Representatives.)
The first sentence of the second paragraph of Tommy’s health
care reform plan contains a Republican Party position-line cooked up a few
years ago by party operative Frank Luntz, that refers to the President’s plan
as a “government takeover of health care”.
(Politfact calls that statement the biggest lie of 2010.) Tommy parrots that line constantly in his TV
ads and his stump speech. To
characterize President Obama’s health care reforms as a government takeover is
complete horsepoop, because it’s no such thing by ANY definition. The government will not take over hospitals
and health care institutions, and doctors and nurses and health care
professionals will not suddenly cease to be independent and become employees of
the state. It doesn’t even work that way
in the “European Socialism Model” we’re constantly being warned about: doctors
contract with health care providing organizations, but remain independent.
Tommy’s “market-based solution” is just as much
hogwash. The market doesn’t work,
because insurers can turn you down for damn near any reason, and once one of
them does, the others won’t touch you.
It’s not free-market, even if you take away the pre-existing condition
argument. It’s not like any other good
or service that operates in a free market, where if one vendor turns you down,
you can buy the item or service somewhere else.
So the health insurance racket is NOT a “free market” by any definition. And, of course, Tommy prattles on about tort
reform and not lining the pockets of the malpractice lawyers with millions of
dollars in huge verdicts. Suffice it to
say Tommy’s plan is Paul Ryan dogma.
Back to the Journalism/advocacy question.
Shouldn’t a good reporter stop Tommy in his tracks when he
starts talking about Obama-care being a government takeover of the health care
industry, and say “wait, wait, that’s a bunch of crap and you know it”? Shouldn’t the “Journalists” who conduct the
candidate “debates” (and anyone who’s ever actually been on a debate team knows
that those joint appearances by the candidates are certainly not “debates”) do
the same? Shouldn’t they call them on
their falsehoods, no matter which party they belong to?
Or should they leave every statement unchallenged, and let
the opposing candidate call an assertion into question?
I don’t know. I’m
sure this line of questioning is being repeated in college classrooms across
America, and I have no idea if the “model” is changing or not. The media certainly have changed, and the way
we consume media certainly has changed.
I think we have to ask the question, though, so that we start thinking
about an answer, and perhaps a different model.
Perhaps Sorkin’s new show will cast more light on this in
future episodes.