A LOOK AT JOURNALISM

by Jason Conant

I have been contemplating writing an article about journalism for some time. What I wanted to do, like with most of my articles, was do the research and try to separate facts from opinions. In a short amount of time, I realized that with this subject of “journalism,” this wasn’t going to be easy.

I want to start with the obvious and undeniable fact of looking at the definition of “journalism.” Should be easy, right? Well, not exactly.

As I researched the meaning of the word, I was surprised to see how many sources put one’s opinions into the definition. This perhaps is why so much journalism today does, indeed, contain lots of opinions. (This is my opinion.)

However, I did see some common trends in the definitions, so we will go with this one from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

“Journalism, noun — 1a: the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media. b: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation. c: writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.”

So, in my opinion, what I found interesting was 1b: “presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation,” and c: “designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.”

In my opinion, much of what we see and hear today, for the most part, contradicts the definition. So, with this said, journalism should leave out how one interprets the report, and yet “c” states that it is “designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.” If we were to remove part of b and c, then we would perhaps be close to “unbiased” reporting.

Now, this is nothing new. In fact, this has been a factor since the 18th century. Truly, completely unbiased news has never existed because human choices—such as what stories to tell, how to frame them, and which words to use—always introduce some sort of perspective.

Yes, early American newspapers were openly partisan and often funded by political parties, which used them to promote their agendas and candidates. This practice was common from the 1780s to the 1830s, during the party press era, when newspapers played a crucial role in the political process. (This information can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as the University of Illinois research department.)

Now, things changed a bit in 1949 with the “Fairness Doctrine.”

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy implemented by the FCC that required broadcasters to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues, which aligned with the principles of objective journalism that emerged as a response to biased reporting. This doctrine aimed to ensure that diverse viewpoints were represented in the media, promoting a more informed public.

The shift from strictly factual news to a more theatrical, opinion-driven, and adversarial style took place largely between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, driven by a few key regulatory and commercial changes.

The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which concluded that it had a “chilling effect” on free speech and was no longer necessary for the public interest. This repeal allowed broadcasters to present news without the obligation to provide balanced coverage. Not only was balanced coverage no longer required, but under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, they didn’t even have to tell the truth.

Late 1980's — Cable Expansion and Adversarial Formats:  Shows like  Crossfire  pioneered the “left versus right” shouting and debate format on national television, proving that outrage and political polarization generated higher ratings and larger profits than dry, neutral reporting.

Early 1990's — The 24-Hour News Cycle & Tone Shift:  Traditional anchors who spoke in a calm, detached, “down-the-middle” monotone were gradually replaced by a more colorful, personality-driven, and sensational style to fill a 24-hour news cycle that needed constant drama to keep viewers engaged.

Then, in the early 2000's, the rise of social media and algorithms completely changed how news is consumed.

THE SHIFT:  Media executives realized that viewers watch longer when they are angry or scared. News networks then pivoted from reporting shared facts to curating narratives tailored to specific political identities. Straight news was pushed out of prime-time slots in favor of theatrical performances.

Performance-based reporting was accelerated by social media and the power of the internet, where journalists and networks are rewarded with clicks and shares for being performative.

Now, let’s look at the approval ratings. I could use this time to call out the lowest-rated news source, but I won’t. When researching ratings, I found polls all over the board, but in general, most outlets are tanking when it comes to approval.

• Gallup reports a record-low 28% trust rate.
• Gallup shows 70% have little or no confidence.
• Pew Research notes that 56% trust national news organizations.

They push sensationalist articles loudly that might not be true. They feel their job is to tell you what you need to believe rather than simply present the facts.

Why, you may ask? Well, it works.

Even with low approval ratings, some believe what they hear, and it affects the way they think about all aspects of life—from government and politics to health and more.

Example: Do you know how many people purchase Sun Chips because they are advertised to be healthy? Well, they are still an ultra-processed snack. The name “Sun Chips” refers to the brand’s theme and marketing rather than a direct use of the sun in their production, and yes, they are still deep-fried. But hey, people believe what they may.

The same thing goes with news. Many are caught up in the worldly chaos, and it’s easier to believe what sounds good and is in line with one’s views than to actually research what is being told.

With this said, when it comes to journalism, keep in mind that it’s entertainment. Just like the ’80s hit show  MacGyver, just because they show it to work and be true doesn’t mean that it is.

Should we get mad at news sources for lying? Perhaps. Or should we be mad at ourselves for believing the lies? You decide.

I do wish that there were more accountability when it comes to reporting untruths. I’m not sure what that would look like, as they always scream “freedom of speech.” But at what point does freedom of speech end and turn into purposely creating chaos?

Yes, you can be arrested for falsely yelling “fire” in a public place, as it can lead to charges such as disorderly conduct or inducing panic, depending on the circumstances. This type of speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it creates a clear and immediate danger to public safety.

I do know that news outlets are often sued for slander, and judges often throw the cases out, or they settle out of court because they can’t prove that they intended to lie and or slander. After all, they achieved what they wanted to achieve: continuing to spread a certain agenda and/or narrative to anyone who is willing to listen.

My advice is to not believe either side and do your own research. Spend some time on the important issues, and be careful about where you get your answers.

When we are shopping for something, we often look at a wide range of options. We research the cost, read reviews, compare quality, and consider the reputation of the product before making a decision. Perhaps we should take that same care when choosing a news outlet. Instead of simply accepting what we hear or read, maybe we should research the source, compare it with others, and determine for ourselves which outlets have earned our trust. And don't give any news outlet the satisfaction of spreading their stories until proven, even if it doesn't align with your political beliefs.