Just the Facts Please
(From deep out of the Bunker Archive – understanding fake news 2004)
Don’t believe anything you hear and only about half of what you actually see. – My Dad (and other wise people)
Wise man, my Dad.
I’ve been doing some more research. I know. Stop yawning. I intended to provide you with an extensive list of examples to support my argument but I won’t. Instead, I’ll equip you with what’s needed to do your own brain exercise. Besides, those of you inclined to agree with me will do so without references. Those of you who aren’t so inclined have probably already switched the channel. But, wait… You may want to stick around for a few minutes. If you do, I promise to give you something useful that’ll help you to dissect before digesting that which you hear and see each day.
I hauled out my dictionary. I needed us to understand the actual definitions for propaganda and journalism. Since we are busy rewriting definitions these days, I thought this was important for the discussion.
Propaganda – ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause. Journalism –writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.
In our world of 24/7, instant worldwide news coverage, we have a problem separating propaganda from journalism. Is propaganda too harsh a word for you? Hey, I didn’t write the definition for it, but if it makes it a little more palatable for you, we’ll discuss it as the difference between an opinion commentary and a newscast presentation of events or facts without interpretation. Just remember what Willie Shakespeare said, “You can call manure a rose if you want to, but it’ll still stink…” or something like that.
I read and listen to quite a bit of news and listen to many of the popular radio and television commentators. If I want the liberal slant to the actual news, I watch CNN, listen to NPR (your tax dollars at work) or one of the networks – ABC, NBC or CBS. If I want the conservative perspective, I’ll tune in to Fox. Although considered by most as conservative, the actual Fox newscasts (not the Fox talk shows) provide, in my opinion, more facts without interpretation than do the others. But, that’s a judgment you can make for yourself once armed with my rules for news dissection. When it comes to listening to commentators, I prefer the conservative perspective. I listen to the liberal commentators too. I like to hear both sides of the debate, but I do not like the extreme position on either the left or the right. Considering both helps round out my perspective. However, I’d as soon gouge my eye out with a stick as to listen to some of them. James Carvel and Pat Buchanan come to mind.
Last year in April, I was out of the country for a while. The only English speaking newscasts that I could get were CNN International and the BBC. Al Jazeera has nothing over these guys. Listening to what passed for actual news was interesting, but frightening. The BBC for example, could always produce one American opposed to the war and present them as the representative voice for all Americans. There wasn’t one single success to report according to their spin and America was clearly the bad guy bully. Their opposition to America was obvious in how they presented (slanted) the news for world consumption. Following two weeks of that, I too was concerned about how we were doing. When I returned home, I was much more observant of what was presented to me as news by alleged newscasters. What I discovered is that we have our own little BBCs and CNN Internationals filling America’s airwaves. To get at the real news, I started mining the facts for myself. In doing so, I developed three simple rules that have helped me see the world and the news, a little more clearly. Here are my rules. Feel free to use them, they’re free and they work.
- Peel away the commentary. Focus on the facts.
Example: “Job growth was a major disappointment this month with only 21,000 new jobs created.
The commentary: “Job growth was a major disappointment this month with only…
The fact: …21,000 new jobs created.
Focus on the facts and form your own opinion about what’s good or bad.
- Apply JD’s bovine scatology detection formula to all statements made by alleged newscasters. If the number of descriptive terms in a statement from a newscaster equals or exceeds the number of facts in the statement, then it’s commentary and not a presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.
Our Example Again: “Job growth was a major disappointment this month with only 21,000 new jobs created.
This statement activates the BS-ometer. The opening statement, Job growth…disappointment is descriptive. The words with only appearing just before the one fact, is the second descriptor. Both have a purpose of telling us our opinion (or how we should think). Two descriptive phrases used to present one fact. Does this more closely fit the definition of propaganda or journalism? Time to flip channels.
- There is something positive that comes out of every story.
If you listen to a newscast and you never hear a positive point reported about (or as in our example positive facts consistently reported in a negative vein), for example, the economy, the government, the war… your BS-ometer should go off as well. This also works in reverse, everything isn’t always rosy either.
Our quandary is this. Too many of us focus on the commentary while skimming past the facts. We do that, because our most prominent and trusted newscasters are actually commentators and because we are a bit lazy at times. Our “newscasters” subtly infuse their opinions into the news giving us ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause more often than they give us direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.
There are only a couple of conclusions I can draw from this.
- They believe that I (and you) am too stupid to consider facts and decide for myself their significance or:
- They have a motive. The only motive I can think of is to cause me (and you) to think a certain way – their way.
If the first is true, it tells me much about many of the people who claim to present the news. If the second is true, that’s simply propaganda.
A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent. – William Blake, 1803
Copyright© JD Pendry, 2004
Category: Politics
“They have a motive. The only motive I can think of is to cause me (and you) to think a certain way – their way.”
Right on, JD. And a good writup.
Probably many folks have already seen the reports about the MSNBC commentator saying it’s the job of the media to tell the public what to think. Here’s one of many reports.
http://patriotretort.com/mika-moment-honesty/
Well written piece, to the point and plainly the simple truth. Thank you JD.
Matters of opinion have been a part of American journalism going back to the earliest days of the republic. It seems to me that what separates opinion from propaganda is that there’s an effort with the latter to cloak the fact it has an agenda. Sometimes, that agenda is financial self-interest that takes the form of a sort of crisis-per-minute sensationalism.
There’s also an argument among those who pay attention to journalism as a business that sensationalism works well in the short term but is ultimately not sustainable in the longer one. In the past, for example, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have had a reputation for not always having the flashiest writers on the block but instead plodding along year after year generating reliable facts. If memory serves, the Washington Post was once running fifth in a five newspaper town when it was bought by Kate Graham’s father at a tax lien sale.
Network television and cable news has also meant a further shift to journalism as entertainment. The prior means by which we determined the gravity of civil discourse, such as a court room or city council chambers, don’t matter all that much now when the alternative is visual conflict and violent protest. The shift to entertainment has also meant that entertainment figures now have a disproportionate voice.
As an example, why is it we’re supposed to believe that Hollywood actors, the kind of people who make a living dressing up and pretending to be somebody else, have been granted unique insight into current events, an insight not shared by the rest of us?
That statement about the Times generating facts vice opinion is dated by about 50 years or so….they’ve been on the leftist side for a very, very long time. “All the news that fits, we print”
Sorry, but I don’t agree. IMHO, the most significant shift was gradual, in closer proximity, and due to multiple factors. It started in 2001 with the election of Michael Bloomberg as NYC mayor, was altered more in 2005 when advertising revenue started going off a cliff, and changed further in 2011 with the selection of Jill Abramson as NYT executive editor.
There’s also a distinction that needs to be made between opinion found on an editorial page, and bias in copy on the news side. It’s not carved in stone that one must always follow the other.
Dammit. The title suggested that this was a profile of Sgt. Joe Friday. Dammit. As for commentators and faux newsies, the TV and radio still come with an off button and there is so many more stations than there were years ago. No longer is the news a must see. If something of import occurs, I’ll get it. It’s like trying desperately but unsuccessfully to reach a family member to let them know great-great grandpa died. They’ll get the word eventually and great- great grandpa is still dead.
My thoughts on journalistic bias have always been colored by the knowledge that the field of journalism terms to attract a more liberally-minded demographic. Thus, a certain unintentional slang to the news is to be expected. This is no more troublesome to me than a fixed-sight rifle firing slightly left; a little Kentucky windage and we’re all good.
Another thought is that much of the problem comes from lazy writing. JD’s example certainly appears to be an effort to unduly influence the reader, but consider that the real story might be:
“Labor department officials expressed disappointment that today’s job-creation figures indicated an increase of 21000 jobs. Earlier forecasts had set expectations somewhat higher, with 21000 falling well below the lowest estimates of 34000 jobs.”
A lazy writer or over-zealous editor might well pare the story down to JD’s one-liner. I’m not excusing it, but it’s a thought I have before I let myself get pissed off about “liberal media deception”.
During my tour of Germany we had a teletype machine running 24/7 spitting out the feed from TASS. Bored as shit, I would stand there reading it. Excellent training for what our so called news outlets spew today.
You knew this was coming.
Fantastic!
Love it!
I watched every episode of Dragnet (reruns) as a teenager–it was my favorite show.
This election cycle the media laid out their intentions openly working with politicians to campaign and set political goals. Because of this easily apparent conduct which went on for well over a year I can never take them seriously any longer. The brand is forever tarnished as being political hacks willing to do and say anything to undermine a certain political view.
Trump nailed CNN so perfectly when he designated them as very fake news and it’s something I’ll remember the rest of my life.
Excellent article Mr. Pendry. I like your three rules for evaluating the objectivity of an article or broadcast.
I have long subscribed to the Wall Street Journal because of their commitment to fact-based reporting. They have taken some heat recently from both the left (some of their own reporters and editors), and conservatives (e.g., for reporting on organization and management problems within the Trump White House). When both sides complain, I figure they’re probably doing something right.
And the Journal publishes articles/commentary like this one, which present an alternative (and quite insightful) perspective:
“The Method in Trump’s Tumult – A raucous cabinet can be an asset. / Some of the best presidents, including Washington, wielded disagreement as a tool.” By Christopher Demuth – Feb. 10, 2017
~ Mark
P.S. I also liked how the Journal’s Editor responded to the internal dissension:
“Wall Street Journal Editor Defends Paper’s Coverage of Trump / Gerard Baker addressed newsroom employees after recent media reports described internal rancor over the Journal’s reporting on President Trump” By Amol Sharma – Feb. 13, 2017. First paragraph: “Wall Street Journal Editor in Chief Gerard Baker on Monday aggressively defended the newspaper against criticism that its reporting on President Donald Trump has been soft, saying the coverage has aimed to hold the new administration accountable without becoming ‘oppositional’.”