Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Your mama

Your mama

Last updated on: January 27, 2005 at 6:33 pm by Fred Clark

6 Comments

Your mama 2005-01-27T18:33:08-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

An old journalists' maxim states: "If your mama says she loves you, check it out."

Yet in myriad ways the press forgets this time-honored wisdom and operates on a presumption of good faith. Whenever it does so, it becomes vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

Take for example the naming of legislation. A state lawmaker dedicated to educational reform introduces a bill and calls it "The Education Reform Act of 1997." That may be an accurate representation of the bill's substance and intent — and your mother may really love you, but you've still got to check it out. By accepting and adopting the name "reform" for a given piece of legislation, journalists give the bill a kind of imprimatur, a value judgment that says "this bill is a Good Thing."

Over the years, lawmakers have gotten savvier about using the names of legislation as Orwellian marketing tools. Any bill regarding education is likely to be called something like "The Better Schools Act" — even if the actual substance of the bill turns out to be a crippling series of budget, staff and program cuts.

The names of pieces of legislation often have little to do with their substance, only with the lawmakers' spin and salesmanship. This makes it ever more important for the press to maintain an adversarial, skeptical stance with regard to using — and therefore implicitly endorsing — such names.

Much has been written about the way journalists naively invoke the principles of "objectivity" or "fairness" to avoid this adversarial responsibility. Objectivity thus gets reduced to accepting everything at face value, and fairness gets reduced to the presumption that all actors are operating in good faith.

Thus, according to the standards of F&O Lite, if your mama says she loves you, print it. And if someone else says she doesn't, print that too. But it's no longer your responsibility to check anything out.

The proximate cause of this little rant is a personal hobby horse of mine — the "Legislative Record" our paper prints daily whenever our state legislature is in session. The examples that follow may seem, or even may be, trivial, but they illustrate the way that contemporary journalism often operates on a presumption of good faith. And the way this presumption makes journalists vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by those who do not deserve such uncritical trust.

The Legislative Record isn't really journalism per se. Its closest kin in the newspaper is probably other matters of public record — things like the lists of property transfers, marriage licenses, fire calls or applications for liquor licenses. Publishing such items is more of a civic function than a journalistic one, but the end result is the same: their publication makes them a matter of public record and the implicit endorsement of the newspaper as truth.

Our paper's Legislative Record is compiled and excerpted directly from the Delaware General Assembly's own records, which can be found here. Repeating and reporting the bill summaries from this record verbatim is therefore regarded as a matter of objectivity.

Therein lies the problem. These bill summaries are not always to be trusted. The Delaware Legislature is nowhere near as talented as the U.S. Congress at this sort of thing, but — due to earnest zeal as well as increasing political savvy — state lawmakers have begun to use the synopsis of the bill as a kind of elevator sales pitch. These sales pitches, little bits of marketing and advocacy, are reprinted in the paper as objective matters of fact. That's not good.

Here are a few examples from yesterday's paper. First, an example of a straightforward bill summary that does what such summaries are supposed to do, i.e., summarize the bill:

S.B. 14 (McBride) – Would reduce from 30 years to 25 years the time state employees require to qualify for full pension benefits. To Finance.

Fair enough. But here's another summary that starts out well, but then veers off into argument and assertion:

H.B. 28 (Spence) – Allows the Colonial School District to convey the King Property to the City of Wilmington. The King Property is not needed for school purposes, and the conveyance will allow the King Property to be used for purposes beneficial to residents of the City of Wilmington. Tabled.

It may be that the assertions Rep. Spence makes in that second sentence are all true, that the reasons he argues here are valid and in the public interest. Yet even so, by including these assertions in the bill summary, he has managed to get his arguments printed in the newspaper and treated not as argument, but as fact.

One can imagine an instance in which a lawmaker and a city official get cozy with a local developer who envies a piece of school district property. If that property were conveyed to the city, it might then be acquired by the developer at a favorable price. This little piece of graft might be sold to the public as "beneficial to the residents" of the city. That's not (as far as I know) what's going on here, but if it were the public and the newspaper would be ill-equipped to respond due to the presumption of good faith and the assumption that something is true simply because a public official said it is.

You might wonder why I'm concerned about such parochial matters in a world in which the furious spin of a blatant prevaricator like Scott McClellan (see No. 48 in this list) is also treated as a matter of public record and embraced, endorsed and repeated as fact.

My point (quixotic, occupational campaigns aside) is that the same journalistic failings made by the deservedly maligned White House Press Corps can be found throughout American journalism.

From top to bottom, a misplaced presumption of good faith is structured into the way the press operates. The aggressive skepticism of "If your mama says she loves you, check it out" and the adversarial stance it demands is now regarded as "biased." A cowed press defends itself from this charge by dutifully repeating what it is told — by your mama, your state representative, your White House spokesperson.

A press that trusts everyone cannot be trusted.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 24, 2005

Death watch

Next Post

January 28, 2005 Torture is wrong

Recent Comments

6 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

At a well in Samaria, I asked a woman for a drink and told her about living water. How many husbands had she had?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Five Three Seven Two