Media Curmudgeon

« NBC’s NFL Half-Time Program | Main | Neil Derrough Responds »

August 27, 2007

Editorials and Commentaries

The title of Bill Moyers' speech to the AEJMC was titled "What Adam Said to Eve," referring to a line he had in the speech: As Adam and Eve were on their way out of the Garden of Eden, he reportedly said to her: “My Dear, we live in a time of transition.” Moyers was talking about journalism, but he could just as well have been talking about a sub-category of journalism--editorials.

Before I opine about editorials and commentaries, I think we need to define the terms, because the current use of the term "editorial" is loose. An editorial is an opinion piece that reflects the official position of the owners of a newspaper, magazine, television or radio station, cable system, or website. Editorials are traditionally labeled as such and clearly separated from other content, and should be, I believe.

Commentaries are the opinions of individual contributors and reflect their own views and not that of ownership or management, and, like editorials, should be labeled or, at the very least, separated from news and information content, as in the “Opinion” section of the New York Times website.

What has happened in this age of transition to the labeling of editorials and commentaries/opinions? What has happened to fair and balanced news reporting other than having the concept hijacked for a cynical and false marketing claim?

Because Media Curmudgeon is an opinion blog--not news or information--what follows is my opinion: I believe that opinion (editorial and commentary) has crept into news and information content because of greed--the lust for power, money, and sex. Greed and lust are certainly nothing new. The lust for power, the ability to control others, has existed since humans have existed, even before the Garden of Eden, a sweet myth invented by church elders who wanted to control men and, especially, women for monetary gain and sex. Christopher Hitchens supports this position in his dazzlingly brilliant book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

There are many reasons people are greedy for power, money, and sex (PMS). One of the most common is personality type. I believe many of those who lust for PMS have a rigid, authoritarian personality, as described by Adorno, Frenkl-Brusnwick, Levinson, and Sanford in The Authoritarian Personality and more recently popularized by George Lakoff as the strict father personality in Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives. Lakoff, a linguist, details how right-wing conservatives systematically framed political issues over 20 years to gain power and, eventually, the White House.

I believe the majority of the right-wing conservatives have rigid, authoritative personalities and that they want to impose their values and beliefs on others. In their ingrained self-righteousness they are convinced they are right on all things and that the end justifies the means; they are unwilling to listen or debate the issues. It's "my way or I'll kill you and your children"--either kill you with guns or with words that demean and humiliate. There are no laws or federal regulations that make it illegal to assassinate a group of people or public figures with words and lies. So liberals, gays, atheists, and reasonable people are fair game.

Therefore, I believe the motivation for the strict father personality type to editorialize is to proselytize—any means justifies the end; the end being conversion to their views and, thus, power. They want you to convert and then do what they tell you to do without questioning or else there will be strict punishment.

The old-fashioned concept of editorial fair play that was traditional in the broadcast media before 1987 (click for a history of the Fairness Doctrine) has been abandoned by many rigid, authoritarian owners, especially corporate broadcast ownership. When the Fairness Doctrine required it, broadcasters would air rebuttals to their editorials. Opposing points of view were encouraged and broadcast. But rarely do you see editorializing or rebuttals today in broadcast and cable, even though editorials in newspapers and most magazines still print Letter to the Editors that expound opposite points of view.

Once fairness was deregulated, for many reasons, some of them reasonable at the time, broadcasters stopped editorializing and opinion began creeping into content until it became content. Broadcast and cable programmers found that opinions stirred the water, were exciting, and engaged emotions more than engaging the mind—in other words got ratings. This trend was accelerated by on-air talent who craved to be celebrities and have their opinions heard, regardless of the intellectual value of their opinions—they’d rather be famous, and, thus, high paid, than be right. Excuse me, I mean “than be correct.”

Right-wing, conservative positions tend to be simplistic, often fundamentalist, and, thus, not complicated. Therefore, they are easier to articulate, especially for and to less educated people. Liberal, progressive positions tend to be more complicated and nuanced, thus more difficult to articulate in sound bites. Bingo: Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

The liberal, progressive response to the simplistic conservative programming and opinion-infected news and information programming has, unfortunately been petulant and copy-cat. Frustrated, the liberals and progressives have allowed their opinions to infect their programming and have not labeled their opinions as such. They have abandoned their marketplace-of-ideas approach, the theory of which was to editorialize not to proselytize but to create a public dialogue on important issues and let those ideas compete for acceptance in an open marketplace of ideas. This the approach I take on Media Curmudgeon—here is my opinion, please disagree and I’ll post your ideas so we can have an open and, hopefully, heated discussion; because I believe light comes from heat and that you come closer to the truth by exploring ideas than by keeping opinions one-sided.

Liberals and progressives are now proselytizing, going for conversions, and getting down in the imbedded opinion gutter with conservatives. Even my favorite liberal, Bill Moyers, can’t resist. Michael Getler, PBS’s ombudsman, wrote a critique of an August 17, “Bill Moyers Journal” program in which Moyers ended with a blistering editorial that raked Karl Rove over the coals. But his comments were not labeled as commentary or an editorial, and should have been, as Getler properly pointed out. In my view Rove deserved being criticized, but Moyers should have labeled it as an opinion and, probably, left it out of the program. His program has consistently delivered solid, fact-based investigative journalism, critical of the war in Iraq and big drug companies--liberal causes to be sure--but fact-based. Let the facts speak for themselves and gain traction in the marketplace for ideas without a push, no matter how tempting it is to push.

Alberto Gonzales resigned today after a long, bitter investigation by Congress that was kick-started by facts first uncovered in a blog—Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo. Marshall didn’t editorialize, his staff presented facts. The best way to counter the simplistic, doctrinaire conservative propaganda and ranting is to present facts based on solid, thorough, accurate reporting (good journalism) or by ridicule, as brilliantly and popularly done by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.

Many thoughtful observers of the political scene thought that it was Herblock’s cartoons in the Washington Post that were the biggest nail in Nixon’s coffin when he resigned. Biting humor and pointed ridicule are often the most effective weapons in exposing mendacity, greed for PMS, and corruption. So in the new media world, television comedians have taken over the role once filled by Honoré Daumier, Harpers Weekly’s Thomas Nast, and Herblock. Who needs editorials when it’s so easy to make fun of the greedy, the liars, and the poseurs?

Posted by Charles Warner at August 27, 2007 01:30 PM

Comments

Media Curmudgeon at August 30, 2007 01:15 PM writes:

Bruce Braun at August 30, 2007 01:03 PM writes:

Media Curmudgeon at August 27, 2007 07:06 PM writes:

Media Curmudgeon at August 27, 2007 06:30 PM writes:

Post a comment