Despite his conservative bent, lawyer and
professional ethicist Jack Marshall authors what is consistently one of my
favorite blogs, Ethics Alarms. A recentpost of his attacked the “Question of the Day” posed by CNN’s Carol Costello on
Thursday morning. She asked her viewers
to contact the show with their answer as to the rather nonsensical question “Do
CEOs make good presidents?” She went on
to cite Donald Trump, Ross Perot, and Herman Cain as examples of CEOs. Astute observers will notice that none of
them were presidents, and they might also realize that no CEOs have ever been
presidents. But as long as Costello had
to choose purely hypothetical examples, she certainly could have come up with a
more balanced list.
Jack Marshall sees this as proof positive of
liberal media bias, and an effort on the part of CNN to torpedo the Romney
candidacy by any means necessary. It’s
honestly hard not to agree with him on that latter point, although I don’t for
a moment believe in the myth of the liberal media. The loaded question presented by Costello on
Thursday morning was undoubtedly in Obama’s favor, but the overall bias of the
media is not towards liberal viewpoints or personalities. The overall bias is in favor of viewership
and profitability, and outside of Fox News and MSNBC, where this is
accomplished by a commitment to conservativism and liberalism, respectively,
the result is a good deal of duplicity buttressed by base pandering and bad
journalism.
Those are the things for which the media must be
most vigorously criticized. And what are
more crucial than any particular bias are the elements of laziness and
stupidity put on display by this and virtually any other CNN Question of the
Day. I’m not especially bothered by the
fact that Carol Costello was trying to not-so-subtly impugn the qualifications
of candidate Romney. What aggravates me
is the fact that she was asking her viewers to do it for her.
So we live in a representative democracy. It’s wonderful; we’re all proud of that
fact. That doesn’t mean, however, that a
seemingly democratic process is appropriate for every single social
institution. The fifth estate is
supposed to be independent of the ebbs and flows of public opinion, as well as
the influence of government. Indeed,
it’s crucial to a well-functioning democracy that the populous be informed by a
media which deals in facts and expert dialogue rather than being an aggregator
of private, uninformed opinion.
I’d be hard pressed to think of a more uninformed
opinion than any response to the question “Do CEOs make good presidents?” Whether you answer yes or no, your answer is
as meaningless as if you had stated your opinion about the financial management
skills of the tooth fairy. There is no
information on either topic, so to answer the question is to construct a purely
speculative fantasy. And even if there
had been CEO presidents in the past – even if there was a tooth fairy – it
wouldn’t make a poll of private opinions any more informative. As politically engaged citizens, we’re
supposed to be able to refer to the news media for information before we form our opinions.
If CNN believes that CEOs, in theory, would make
terrible presidents, that’s fine; let them say so. But let them say so by referring to
historical facts and correlating business activities with the challenges that a
person can be expected to face in political office. Completely unbiased journalism is widely regarded
as a fantasy, but there’s a clear distinction between responsible and
irresponsible bias in reporting. Framing
one’s claim as the question of the day is decidedly irresponsible. It just allows the network to hide its
opinion behind unaffiliated responses to their hideously leading
questions. It parrots the common
argumentative tactic of dodging criticism by insisting, “Hey, I’m just asking
questions, here.”
Asking questions is indeed a crucial part of the
media’s job. But when it comes to political
topics, many so-called journalists seem to have forgotten that other, equally
crucial part: providing answers. If you
as a journalist think a question is essential to the public understanding, then
it’s your responsibility to bring to bear facts and logic on that question to
help the public to resolve it in a way that’s consistent with reality, not just
with their preexisting points of view.
And if you find that the question you want to ask can’t be resolved in
that way, say because there are no relevant historical data, then you’re
probably asking the wrong question.
The modern news media is rife with examples of
behaviors just like the CNN Question of the Day. Instead of listening to the news and being
informed, consumers are not encouraged to tweet at live broadcasts, to vote for
their favorite stories, to sound off with their views in absence of substantive
information that might clarify those views.
When did the media decide that its job is to provide a popular outlet
for every individual’s point of view?
And perhaps more important, why does the public seemingly accept this as
a good thing?
We all want to have our voices heard. Of course we do. But a responsible citizen also takes care to
recognize when his voice is actually needed, and when, on the other hand, he
needs to keep quiet and listen.
Collectively, we need to step outside of our presumptions from time to
time, log off of our otherwise incessant Twitter feeds, and open ourselves up
to the presentation of information that exists independent of our relished
ability to talk back. When we do, maybe
we’ll take clearer notice of the fact that the people tasked with providing
such information simply aren’t doing so, and maybe we’ll use our always-welcome
voices to demand more.
The lessons learned from Thursdays Question of the
Day almost make me want to believe that some rebel copywriter inserted it into
the script in hopes that it would spur some tiny proportion of the audience to
sit up and realize, “Hey, I can’t
answer this question! Why on Earth are
they asking it?” Far more likely,
though, is that some researchers at CNN crafted that question so that they, and
by extension their very network, wouldn’t have to do their job.
1 comment:
I too enjoy Jack's blog -- mostly as a form of entertainment. The fangs are on full display, and if you dare to disagree with one of Jack's opinions, you'd better be prepared to defend your comments.
Unfortunately, his conservative tendencies serve to undermine his credibility on occasion, especially when he's calling down others for being biased.
Post a Comment