Splitting the Difference: The Sin of the Media, The Danger of "Pragmatism"

     It seems like a very long time ago, although probably it has has been only twenty years since it began, and maybe fifteen years since it became a dangerous virus in journalism and television. I am referring to the now standard practice of so-called "balanced" reporting in the political press and among television interviewers. Contemporary editors, journalists and media opinion seekers simply choose one or more "experts" on the subject at hand from the so-called "Left" and "balance" this off with one or more appropriate "experts" from the "Right." The deployment of this too formulaic method of "splitting the difference" rests upon an enormous act of faith -- that truth or some possible means of resolution of a political problem will emerge from this exercise.

     We all know that this premise is weak and that good solutions are not the consequence of such poor logic. At best, we readers and listeners may, quite inadvertently, get to know what the "Center" thinks, because those in the press who came of age from the 1980s onward falsely believe that the centrists they have chosen for "balance" really represent "Left" ideas. They do not. They are only labelled "liberal" or from the "Left" by the "Right," which since the 1980s has managed the diction and discourse of politics. So, the playing field has been shifted quite far to the right even before "balance" is imposed. Representatives of the "Right" have been identified quite easily by this generation of the press and media because the Republican Party has been unapologetically to the right since the 1980s, and their spokespersons are plentiful throughout America. The "Right" has also managed to fund a number of think-tanks from whom "experts" are not only willing to be interviewed, but whose entire raison d'etre is to be interviewed.

     It is worth a brief few words in contrasting Canada and the United States in regard to this evolution. There are right-wing enthusiasts in Canada, as Barbara Amiel's long tenure at Maclean's magazine attests. But rightist politics as expressed by Amiel, and leftist politics, often expressed in the past by NDP or BLOC representatives and others as well, are always transparently right or left. They are sincere in their positions but they are less likely than their American counterparts to man the barricades and show no quarter to their opposition. They are ideologues "light," and those who are cast themselves in a more American ideological mold are either compelled either to keep quiet or to accept being marginalized. Even right-wing think-tanks in Canada are more modest in their mission statements and declarations of purpose than in the U. S.  The C. D. Howe Institute rather blandly submits that it "aims to improve Canadians' standard of living by fostering sound economic and social policy." The Fraser Institute claims its "vision is a free and prosperous world where individual's benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility." These are not quite motherhood statements but they come close.

     Contrast these statements of purpose with those of the three leading (and gargantuan) think-tanks in the U. S. The right-wing American Enterprise Institute claims its purpose is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism -- limited government, private enterprise, individual [and] liberty and responsibility" as its prime goals. Note that the purpose is first nationalistic, then supportive of democracy insofar as it is capitalistic, and that private enterprise is to take full precedence over government. The Heritage Foundation is virtually a replica in purpose:  "To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Like so many rightist organizations, they appropriate the word "conservative" when all they care to "conserve" are 19th century Christian values and patriarchy. The Cato Institute, while mirroring the other two institutes cited above, recognizes this latter issue and denies that it is "conservative" in its long statement of philosophy. "'Conservative' smacks of an unwillingness to change," they protest, and, "Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism -- the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever know -- as conservative." Taking up, but not fully embracing the label "libertarian" (which describes a condition as far "right" or "left" on the political spectrum as one can get), they seem to settle for "market liberalism," because "Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society," and "they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world." They close with a further shot at anything that is not to the "right":  "Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress."

       These think-tanks provide the main fodder of argumentation for the "Right" in the press and media (even when not interviewed directly). I don't know about you, but I have seldom seen "communists" or "socialists," or "democrats" who favor the poor and working and middle classes, interviewed alongside Cato, Enterprise, or Heritage spokespersons. We all know, and some of us even joke about, the Fox Network and its news and political punditry shows. And, until recently at least, Glenn Beck's face frequently filled our television screens, to say nothing about the ubiquitous Lou Dobbs. Rush Limbaugh needs no introduction -- nor should he get one. Their main counterparts, significantly, are court-jesters -- Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert -- who can make us laugh as they snipe and allude and ridicule, but who can always retreat behind the curtain of entertainment, never compelled to take a clear position on principles or policies.

     But what of the news programs, you might add, and the "liberal" press? Well, yes, there are those columnists at places like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The New York Times (Cynthia Tucker, editor of the first, and Frank Rich, political columnist of the latter), but how many of you read, or even know their names.  Most newspapers claim "balance," which means some obvious display of rightist principles and ideas, and some coy inclusion of meek ideas from the political center. Television news programs, other than the shouting matches staged by folks like John McLaughlin, seldom have regular reporters or pundits who are even moderately to the left.

     All of this was driven home to me after I read an old study (4 October, 2006 published by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) (see their blog). They addressed the issue of "balance" on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Our family has pretty well watched this show ever since it was begun by Lehrer and Robin MacNeil. Like others, we were troubled when, in 2005, Kenneth Tomlinson launched a campaign to move both PBS and NPR to the "right" in its political commentary. Bill Moyers show -- NOW -- was dramatically ended (though now reborn as Bill Moyers Journal), and it seemed to us that the Newshour interviewers suddenly began to pitch under-handed softballs to a long line of hard-hitting "rightist" commentators.  It came as a surprise to me, therefore, to learn that Tomlinson had long been happy with the Newhour's balance. FAIR tells why. A 1990 study by FAIR revealed both the elitist and the rightist bias in the Newshour over the past long decade. The Newshour to make a long story short, had moved itself to the right even before heavy pressure from a Republican Congress and a G. W. Bush presidency.

     We all know the reasons for the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of rightist media and journalism:  the corporate consolidation of the media; the death of independent newspapers; the marketing of news through the hiring of pretty men and women as replacements for real journalists; and the ubiquitous economic bottom line which never seems to be served by anything but the so-called "good news" of so-called "conservatism." Yet, what we have all clung to through this revolution is the fictitious idea of "balance." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. fathered this modern idea in his dissent in Abrams v. U. S. (1919) when he adopted the laissez-faire economic theory of the 19th century (now famously reborn by the right, with all of its fallacies intact) to argue for a "free trade in ideas." Liberals and the "Left" bought into this idea too readily. The problem is that such "free trade" is not governed by the quality of the ideas; it is not a "free trade in good ideas" but a free trade in whatever ideas have power and resources and a voice. Those latter ideas are not always well derived and not often good. It seems to me that many of the so-called liberal ideas that broadcasters like Walter Cronkhite and others suggested, came from experience, reflection, rationality, and examination. Some of these folks still remain in the press and on television, but precious few.

     Now that many of the consequences of unregulated capitalism (read "greed") have once again been revealed, we might think that real balance can be restored. This seems to be a belief of Barack Obama and his administration as well. But balance will always be much more difficult than first assumed, and organizations like FAIR and other journalism watchdogs are essential in trying to restore responsibility and reason to the press and media. If not, we will continue to see disgraced and wildly radicalized rightists like many Republicans in Congress given equal (or more) time to make their feeble and patently wrong cases. If not, President Obama may, through his desire for consultation and cooperation, continue to strike a middle that is impossible to attain or false from the start. Let's just try to identify good ideas, and nothing else.