The Press, bias and elections

                   

                   By Makau Mutua
Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.
American Vice-President Spiro Agnew – who left office in ignominy for felony tax evasion in 1973 – once called the Press the “nattering nabobs of negativism”.
He added salt to the wound by lambasting journalists as “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history”.
        The memorable lines were the handiwork of then White House speechwriter William Safire, who became an iconic New York Times columnist.
``Hyperbole aside, VP Agnew expressed the disgust of many towards the Fourth Estate. It’s the work of the press to annoy, especially those in power. It should be equally annoying to those seeking the presidency. Its work should be to inform the public, dig for political dirt, and expose the underbelly of our would-be rulers.
        The Press is, of course, composed of many parts. But two of the most important stations in the business are the commentariat – like myself – and reporters.
Recorders of history
The twain aren’t the same. Reporters are supposed to tell the reader what happens, where, why and whodunit. They are instant recorders of history as it happened. That’s why scholars will often rely on news reporting as evidence and record of events.
        The reporter isn’t supposed to embellish, twist or give a cooked personal interpretation of events. The reporter conveys what she sees, senses, smells, feels and breathes. But she’s not a doormat. She conveys whys and wherefores. The columnist is a completely different animal, the sort that bites you in the rear.
A good columnist is public enemy number one to all and sundry. She takes a machete to what happened, or may happen, and gives it a twirl. She has a large magnifying glass – bifocals, if you will – to enable her to see all the warts. If her sight shows that which is unflattering, you bet she’ll write about it.
        In other words, the columnist doesn’t report safe landings, or crashes, of planes. Nyet – she rakes over the crash site and finds who to blame, and then roasts them royally. Her lenses are tinted with bias, which is simply another word for personal reflection, or opinion. It’s in the commentariat where society looks itself in the mirror and appreciates its ugliness.
That’s why a “free press” – independently owned press or private corporate media – is indispensable to a democracy. Its credibility lies in the level of trust – believability – by the public of its reporters and reporting. Of course, reporters are biased too, but in a different way. They are biased because of the stories they choose to cover, and which the editors decide to run.
But the bias is also in how those stories are written, on what page they are carried, and their headlines. Most importantly, of course, is who is hired as a reporter. How inclusive is the pool of reporters and the commentariat? Are they all Akamba, or male, for example? These choices decide how the paper educates and informs the public.
Spit out all the refuse
Which brings me to how the Press should cover presidential candidates. Off the bat, the Press should never be the funnel for “garbage in, garbage out”.
In other words, the Press isn’t there to simply swallow and spit out all the refuse that issues out of a candidate’s mouth. The Press needs to be discerning and not repeat, for one example, obvious lies or falsehoods. I think every media should have a fact-checker who calls out the lies.
These must be prominently published. Reporters shouldn’t simply spectate and sit there drooling when candidates are denialists of facts. Spin is one thing, but bald-faced denialism quite another. Reporters need to build narratives of candidates through good and well-researched reporting.
        I’ve written that it’s OK – and publicly responsible policy – for media houses to endorse candidates. Every media house has an ideological stripe. Some are conservative while others are liberal, or progressive. A number are religious. Let a thousand flowers bloom. But this means that different outlets will push their own ideological, moral, and political agendas. No media house is truly neutral.
At the very least, most media houses aren’t neutral between democracy and dictatorship, or fascism – unless they are in the gulags of authoritarian states. I believe any media house should be free to endorse candidates that it believes advance its vision of society. The media, though corporate, is a “citizen” with a right to its views.
Dissect and expose
Finally, a word on the commentariat and presidential candidates. No part of the paper is better placed to dissect and expose candidates than opinion writers.
I’ve heard some knuckleheads complain that this, or that, columnist is “attacking” a certain candidate. That’s baloney. It would be irresponsible for a columnist not to turn candidates upside down and see what contraband falls out of their pockets.
I’ve seen other critics complain that a columnist should be equally critical of all candidates. Again, that’s hogwash. It’s not the burden of a columnist to walk around with a balancing scale. Don’t read a columnist if she aggrieves you. Write a counter response.
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School. He’s Chair of KHRC. @makaumutua.

Source: Sunday Nation yesterday.