By Rick Perlstein
New York Times, Sept. 10, 2010
The problem is not the Web. Anti-JFK rallies "revealing" to every school child in Orange County, California that Communists planned to colonize the United States by the year 1970 drew bigger crowds than Tea Parties today, with nary a blogger among them.
The problem is that elite media gatekeepers have abandoned their moral mandate to stigmatize uncivil discourse. Instead, too many outlets reward it. In fact, it is an ironic token of the ideological confusions of our age that they do so in the service of upholding what they understand to be a cornerstone of civility: the notion that every public question must be framed in terms of two equal and opposite positions, the "liberal" one and the "conservative" one, each to be afforded equal dignity, respect — and (the more crucial currency) equal space. This has made the most mainstream of media outlets comically easy marks for those actively working to push public discourse to extremes.
Don't blame the minister and his bait-and-switch bonfire either. Once upon a time anticommunist book burnings and threats of book burnings were not unheard of. The difference is that Associated Press reporters did not feel obliged to show up. That shift in news values, not the rise of the Internet, is the most profound way that times have changed.
In 1961 Time magazine called these "Ultras" alien and strange, and pronounced, "Wherever [they] arise, they cause domestic acrimony," and judged they should be "wooed back into normal channels of political expression." That last clause was perhaps a bit too much editorializing.
But by 1995, however, any hint of stigma had devolved into slack perplexity: "Is Rush Limbaugh Good for America?" was a cover headline that year. Fifteen years later a bedazzled Time dropped the skepticism, crowning Glenn Beck as "the hottest thing in the political-rant racket….A gifted entrepreneur of angst….tireless, funny, self-deprecating," who "has lit up the 5PM slot in a way never thought possible by industry watchers." Such treatment of people who distort things for a living cannot but push the bounds of permissible ideological performance art in ever more extreme directions.
There are responsible news stories to be written about people like this. On February 24, 2009, President Obama delivered the speech unveiling his economic stimulus package, renewing his promise for middle class tax cuts. The next day Rush Limbaugh reviewed it, introducing his now-frequent proposition that whatever the president says he "means the opposite in most cases." Rush Limbaugh has 20 million listeners every day, many of whom call themselves Limbaugh's "dittoheads." He teaches one of every 10 adult Americans to automatically disbelieve anything their nation's chief Constitutional officer says, as an axiom. This is news, maybe front page news.
Likewise, just the other day, talker Steve Malzberg of WOR — a 50,000 watt heritage station with a weekly program hosted by Mayor Bloomberg — carried out a sympathetic interview with the book-burning pastor himself, with callers chiming in with approval for the spirit of his proposed act. That broadcast in itself is more newsworthy than whatever it is the minister's 50 followers did or didn't end up doing down in Gainesville — even if presented, as the AP promised to its client papers, "in a clear and balanced context."
The coverage is already the context -- and was a priori unbalanced. The genie is of course already out of the bottle; after a certain point, news is news. Editors should reflect, though, for the future. "We're sick and tired of being ignored," a Beck follower was quoted in a cover story in Time magazine. Yet a Time/CNN poll found only 5 percent of a nationwide sample had participated in Tea Party events. This is not balanced coverage. It is coverage distorted grotesquely beyond measure.
Rick Perlstein is the author of "Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America" and "Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that Rick Perlstein is either purposely omitting or overlooking a major factor in his argument. Opposition to the people in office is always more outgoing, more passionate, and frankly more interesting than people that agree with those in office. Who was the biggest news story for much of President Bush's term in office? Cindy Sheehan, the lady that led protests outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX and everywhere else. Her protests weren't drawing 10,000 followers, but her angle was compelling. The media has always been drawn to the opposing views because they become tired of the administration in office. Perlstein acts as if the media should immediately discredit someone that automatically opposes the views of President Obama because he is the President. He once again fails to mention those that did the same thing for President Bush and those that did the same thing for every president in our history. I think this is a very thinly written article that does not explore the other sides opinions. At the very least he could have mentioned the opposing opinions and disproved them if he thought he could
ReplyDeleteI agree with Perlstein when he describes how news coverage seems to focus more on the fringe elements of society; however, I believe his own assessment of this "coverage distorted grotesquely beyond measure" is itself distorted. He only focuses on the "conservative" aspect of this subject, and he completely ignores how liberals are guilty of the same polarizing debate. While the arguments of Beck and Limbaugh may indeed be distorted, so are the views of liberals like Maddow and Olbermann. The views of people like Beck and Limbaugh may be controversial, but they at least raise questions and cover stories that the mainstream media have largely ignored (the corruption within ACORN, how stimulus money is spent, etc.). Perlstein's argument that Tea Party coverage is unbalanced because only 5 percent of Americans have attended a rally is totally biased and off-base. In a Gallup poll from September 17, 2010, 58 percent of those polled believe a third party is needed. In a CBS News poll from earlier this month, nearly one in five Americans support the Tea Party movement. That is more than simply a fringe element, and Perlstein's distorted argument reveals his own liberal bias - a reason why so many Americans no longer trust the news media.
ReplyDeletePerlstein brings up an interesting point that the media has become focused on the wrong part of issues. I believe that this is mainly news organizations just trying to make money on controversial issues. When news organizations had the ability to be gatekeepers they could write whatever they deemed interesting, but now the consumer only tunes into things that are sensational.
ReplyDeletePerlstein brings up that he believes controversial anchors are challenging the way news is now made. Anchors such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow all use outlandish statements to bring viewers in. The problem I see with this is that this is presented on a "news" channel when in reality all these anchors do is show their opinion. I believe that Perlstein doesn't make this distinction and becomes partly biased by doing so.
I believe that Perlstein offers some insight to the issues in the media but forgets that many of these news organizations are just out to make money and follow what the consumer wants.
Although I agree with most of Pearlstien's argument I feel that the methods he espouses point largely in the wrong direction.
ReplyDelete"The difference is that Associated Press reporters did not feel obliged to show up." To me, that seems a backward way to go about things. That is to say, completely ignoring fringe groups like this isn't going to work in our society today. The 1960's were a very different time, with much more respect for established norms and social constructs. News must evolve along with it's audience, and I think the idea of freedom of expression strikes a different chord with people now than it did.
We must also not forget that in today's society, fringe movements can become newsworthy in a blink of an eye due to instantaneous communication and, in my opinion, more rampant 'slacktivism' (As in: I support your position, but I'll be damned if I'm going to do, or even learn anything about it-- which probably explains the difference in numbers between "In a CBS News poll from earlier this month, nearly one in five Americans support the Tea Party movement." and "Yet a Time/CNN poll found only 5 percent of a nationwide sample had participated in Tea Party events.") It's easy for someone to say they support some fringe element if the only information they get about them is from so-called 'balanced' news reporting.
I got off track, but I think what news reporting needs to do is recognize these people, but report them in a realistic perspective. 'Balance' has never worked; its shortcomings have only become more apparent in our now more 'colorful' society.
I think Rick Perlstein makes several good points in his article. It is true that the news values today have greatly shifted. Controversy and extremists are what sell newspapers and get people to tune in to radio and television talk shows. If everything was going great and everybody agreed what the people in the White House were doing, there were be no need for such constant coverage. People like Beck and Limaugh realize what it takes to draw viewers in and create a buzz about their actions. Sometimes I wonder if they actually believe some of the things they are saying, or if it is all just a big scheme to have their other, less controversial opinions listened to. I think it becomes a big cycle where other reporters or news stations feel the need to report on controversial issues in order to keep up with their competitors, because they know the type of news people want to hear and buy. I think we are a long way from fixing this problem because the media is still adjusting to all the new technology. For now, it seems like people will have to choose what they think is news worthy and what is just a plan to get their attention.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rick Perlstein and he makes some good points in his article, but he also is wrong in some ways. I believe he is right that everyone enjoys listening to the people who cover the news such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh than the people in office. The problem I have with Perlstein is that he is bashing the conservatives. The liberals do the exact same thing as the conservatives. Perlsteins biased liberal thoughts are very noticeable in the article.
ReplyDeleteTo recap my thoughts, the American people like to watch the reaction and thoughts that the popular politicians talk about on tv. Who doesnt?
I can see what Perlstein is saying in his article, but I don't agree with him.
ReplyDeleteI think that because og how the news industry is today, with there always being new news and it being updated constantly, we can cover everything. I definitely agree that some news is more important that other news and some of these things were not newsworthy enough to be front page but it can still be news and someone is interested in it.
Basically, I think there is a place for everything. Not all stories should be on the cover of the New York Times, but in today's journalism there is a place to write a story about just about anything, even if it is on your own blog.
Perstein presents a valid argument and one that I agree with.
ReplyDeleteThe media does give credence and coverage to events now that the past media would not have. Perlstein was correct in saying that journalism principles evolving has changed the way the media covers stories and what the media chooses to cover. The internet has provided an abundance of new channels for this coverage but is not the reason for the revolution. Whether you are conservative or liberal, one should not just look for the side of news that reinforces their beliefs but now get both styles of the coverage as to provide a more fair and balanced judgement somewhere in the middle.
I agree with some of what Perlstein is saying, but only to a certain extent.
ReplyDeleteWhen Perlstein states that the media focuses a lot more on "fringe" stories today than it should, I think he has a valid point. A lot of news outlets blow up a story, or focus on the wrong aspects of a certain story, making it look like it's something it's not. And that's a problem, but with all these different outlets competing to get the best ratings and make the most money, they all feel it necessary to have the most outlandish news story so that viewers will tune in.
Also, he is right when he says that people such as Limbaugh and Beck get shown in a light that makes them look as though they are speaking truth about news stories, and that they appear to be announcing stories in such a manner that people end up believing what they are saying to be truth, when in actuality these people are just sharing their very strong and narrow minded opinions and what they say should be taken with a grain of salt, and examined from many different angles.
However, Perlstein himself is being biased and opinionated in this article in the fact that he is that he is harping on and bashing conservatives, when it would be just as easy to publicize the same examples he is sharing, but with liberals instead of conservatives.
Perlstein's biased comments in the article can quickly and easily diminish his credibility and make any valid arguments he has in this article be questioned.
I regretfully agree with Perlstein's main point: that controversial events and people are what is considered news now. These people that stand up on their grand stands and shoot their far left or right wing views do it in a manner that causes people to listen. Even if what they are saying is not news, the viewer still views it as news because often the Rush Limbaughs of the world work for a news station, automatically giving credibility to what they say in the viewer's mind. This has led to a terrible trend in news, leading the news industry to focus on the outrageous and most exciting news rather than perhaps the most relevant or necessary news.
ReplyDeleteThe job of the news industry is to inform the general public about what is going on in the world that surrounds all of us. Society needs educated people to make educated decisions in order for society to press on. With these people on news stations presenting their opinions so emphatically that one cannot help but to take it as fact, the news the public is getting is greatly clouded.
The Rush Limbaughs of the world will not go away, and I'm not saying that they should have to go away. But they should not be able to have their shows played on a news channel. They should host shows on channels geared toward opinion where people will not take what they say as concrete facts.
Perlstein is correct in raising concerns about what today's media considers news. The past few years have suffered from a fallout of strict objective journalism that ultimately falls short in impact, and the response to that is the media concentrating on the polarized aspects of news. As journalists, it is our responsibility to not only cover the news, but to give fair analysis of it.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this journalistic value has been used in some newsrooms as a ideological soapbox, in which commentators pass themselves off to be journalists when they are not. Perlstein recognizes the kind of distorted impact this has; the newsroom being used as a venue for opinion that is received by the public as fact.
Where Perlstein falls short in his argument is that he himself allows certain biases and opinions distort his point. He attacks the far right for being the worst offender of this kind of news, but the fact remains that the problem is not one of ideology, but a journalistic one. After years of the news being objective, newsrooms today want to give more than just "who, what, when, where, why and how." That doesn't cut it anymore. However, newsrooms need to recognize that loyalty should lie in giving citizens the facts and giving fair analysis of them, and not to a political party or faction.
I agree with Rick Perlstein's assertion that journalists place way too much importance on getting "both sides of the story," even though both sides of the story do not always carry the same weight. I wasn't around in the 1970's so I'm not aware of how journalists used to treat extremists or attention mongers such as Terry Jones, but if he is correct about how gatekeepers used to consider it a mandate to "stigmatize uncivil discourse" then he may have a point. Some stories, including the one about Terry Jones, seem rather isolated or trivial when looking at the big picture. I really don't know how I feel about the popularity of such divisive and polarizing figures such as Rush Limbaugh, but I wouldn't mind if the media did reclaim some of their authority/responsibility as gatekeepers. The Tea Party is currently the best example of this media pulpit being provided for what is really just a tiny segment of a vast and diverse population.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Perlstein on some points, especially his idea that many media organizations focus on "fringe" stories in order to get more readers or viewers. Blowing stories out of proportion in order to get better ratings is not honest journalism. However, Perlstein puts down only conservatives like Beck and Limbaugh in his story when liberal media can be accused of exactly the same kind of news coverage. Media today is a business, and it seems like organizations habe to place more emphasis on entertainment-news to make more money, which is sad. I also agree that the faces of political media that the public sees, like Beck and Limbaugh, are portrayed as being truthful in whatever they say, even though they are mostly sharing opinions. More stories should be written about Beck and Limbaugh in order to dissuade the perception that their word is always law.
ReplyDelete