Journalism Run Amok or Bye-Bye, Robert Redford

Copyright 2019 Indiana Policy Review, reprinted with permission

by Craig Ladwig

Craig Ladwig is the Editor of the Indiana Policy Quarterly Review

Perhaps the national media never really believed that a 30-second video clip showed overt racism by MAGA-hat-wearing southern teenagers. Maybe it didn’t care whether the murder of a seven-year-old black girl in Houston was by an imaginary white man in a hate crime or simply a routine gang-related homicide. It may not even dislike Donald Trump, personally that is.

It simply doesn’t know how else to act.

This, please know, is worse than bias or even professional dishonesty. It means the collapse of an institution that the Founders considered critical to our liberty. It also is a puzzle, for why would the journalist elite continue a method whose end result leaves them shot in the foot time after time.

In trying to answer that, some of us go back to 1976 when the new journalism began, settling down in our theater  seats as callow j-school graduates to watch Robert Redford in “All the President’s Men.”

The plot line, you will recall, was not a who-done-it. Rather, the villain was known from the first handful of popcorn. The tension of the story line was created around whether the young hero journalists would be squelched by the powerful and privileged in their pursuit of ultimate truth. The “facts” that allowed them to prevail were not so much the product of journalistic technique as they were delivered deus ex machina from off stage by shadowy, anonymous and unaccountable figures.

And that, pretty much, has been “journalism” ever since. It is as Seth Baron wrote recently in City Journal: “The Covington High School brouhaha reminds us that the media have precast the meaning of every story.” That is, Robert Redford, the facts be damned, always gets his man.

So it doesn’t matter whether the target is a U.S. president in the White House or an all-boys parochial school in Kentucky as long as the subject can be cast as an unworthy recipient of power and privilege. Ambitious journalists today, you see, consider their job solely to bring such people down — whatever it takes.

They cannot help themselves; it’s all they know. And ironically, it has destroyed their profession, or at least changed its definition beyond historic recognition. Readership, viewership, market penetration, however you want to measure it, is on a disastrous downward spiral. Even Gannett Inc., the pluperfect model of this new journalism, is being eyed by vulture capitalists who would sell it for parts.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Journalism can be restored to what it was before the Redford romanticism took hold, returned to providing a source of perhaps mundane or ugly but trustworthy information for free citizens trying to determine political direction and public policy.

Toward that goal, we would be wise to rethink New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court case that established the “actual malice” standard. The effect of the ruling was that as a practical matter no official or a public figure could sue for damage when wronged. He must first prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew it was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity — a difficult if not impossible hurdle.

Those who have forgotten what journalism looked like before this are referred to “Central Ideas in the Development of American Journalism,” Dr. Marvin Olasky’s indispensable resource on the topic.

Olasky begins by noting that journalists from the l7th through l9th centuries invented much of what we associate with admirable journalism: “A sense of purpose, a willingness to oppose arrogant rulers, and a stress on accuracy and specific detail.” He dubs this the “corruption story.”

A countervailing journalism or “story,” the precursor of the Robert Redford method, arose with Horace Greeley and Joseph Pulitzer. Olasky explains that they believed that man is naturally good but is enslaved by oppressive social systems. He called this the “oppression story,” in which problems arise not from personal corruption but from external influence. If man’s environment is changed, its thinking goes, then man himself changes, and poverty, war, and so on, are no more. Olasky’s conclusion:

“This change affected not only story content but reporters’ methods. Corruption story journalists tended to have limited personal agendas because they emphasized personal transformation rather than social revolution. Oppression story journalists, who came to dominate the most influential publications in the 20th century, believed their own work could be the breakthrough to a better world. As the great ends of oppression story journalism — peace, justice, freedom — began to seem attainable, means began to be negotiable.”

And so it goes . . . (with apologies to Kurt Vonnegut).

Craig Ladwig is the editor of the quarterly Indiana Policy Review.

4 Comments

  1. Well, I can tell you that a professional journalist would not misspell the name Houston in the second sentence of a story about professionalism in journalism.

    • in defense of the author, he was working on an event with Tom Huston at the same time he wrote this. . . and the editor (which would be me) should have caught that. Thank you for reading David.

  2. “They cannot help themselves; it’s all they know. And ironically, it has destroyed their profession, or at least changed its definition beyond historic recognition.” This line proves what a shallow argument this is. The author is too lazy to go after someone like Sean Hannity, who has made a career out of provoking outrage and anger by reporting slanted, misleading stories that have been repeatedly shown to false, so he categorizes every journalist as incompetent.

Leave a Reply to David Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.