05.17.07
The Fourth Estate
I have a concern. While the core of my concern could be boiled down to a matter of politics, it goes deeper than that. It goes to the responsibility which has been abdicated by journalists specifically, but authors more generally. My concern arises from my day job as a librarian, a reference librarian, a reference librarian responsible for selecting non-fiction titles to include in our collection of books, a reference librarian responsible for helping students in the community locate materials to use in their research.
In a perfect world, journalists are unbiased reporters of fact. In truth, that’s more the exception than the rule, and it always has been. Journalists have helped start wars. They’ve helped intervention in wars and they’ve advocated the abandonment of wars. Journalists helped ratify The Constitution and elect Presidents and on occasion announce the wrong winner of an election.
Call me an idealist, but I believe in the utopian ideal of journalism, and so do most journalists, or so they say when asked directly. But if you ask why they went into journalism in the first place, they rarely say that they want to lay out the facts. They usually answer that they are interested in being an advocate, or an activist, or a means of change. Not necessarily in those words, but they want to do something. They want to play a part in shaping the world.
That’s fine. That’s journalism, and it always has been. It’s not what they claim, but being a reporter of facts is loftier, nobler, than being a shaper of the news. The latter seems dirtier, akin to “Yellow Journalism”. Nobody would willingly give themselves a job title of Purveyor of Falsehood and Lies. And let me back off of that just a bit. I don’t even believe that of them. But neither do I hold on to the notion that journalists are unbiased.
Fake, But Accurate
One of the more glaring examples of media bias is CBS News’ investigation into George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. The investigation began in 1999 by looking for evidence of preferential treatment. None was found other than one hearsay statement by former Texas State Representative Jake Johnson regarding a conversation with General James M. Rose in which the General claimed to have “put Bush in the TANG”. The story was dropped until mid-2000.
In 2000, Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett alleged that Bush’s military records had been “scrubbed”. CBS did not pursue the story further until the summer of 2004.
Lieutenant Colonel Burkett reappeared in early 2004, making the rounds on television news programs. Almost immediately, contradictions began to appear in his story. In early September 2004, he met with Mary Mapes, Dan Rather’s producer on 60 Minutes Wednesday, and supplied her with documents which purported to show that Bush had been suspended from flying status, and that pressure was applied in order to get a good officer review. They ran with the story. These documents were later proved to be forgeries, but CBS continued to defend the story they aired on September 8th for months. Even now, Mapes and Rather contend that the documents may have been fake, but the story was accurate.
CBS’ own internal investigation of the failure to ensure a fair and accurate story had this to say:
While the focus of the Panel’s investigation at the outset was on the Killian documents, the investigation quickly identified considerable and fundamental deficiencies relating to the reporting and production of the September 8 segment and the statements and news reports during the aftermath. These problems were caused primarily by a myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast what was believed to be a new story about President Bush’s TexANG service, and the rigid and blind defense of the segment after it aired despite numerous indications of its shortcomings.
CBS News is still feeling the backlash from this episode. The ratings for The Evening News dropped precipitously, and even today, with Katie Couric as the anchor, the ratings continue to fall, though more likely due to other reasons.
(An aside here, because, while Couric is going to take the blame along with an American public that is “not ready” for a female anchor, and potential women news anchors will pay the price, I believe the blame still lies with CBS News. The organization decided that it would “soften” the news to fit its anchor, rather than allowing Couric to adapt her style to hard news. CBS never gave her the chance to prove herself, and thereby doomed her to failure.)
So why do I care about broadcast journalism? I began this piece whining about my responsibilities as a reference librarian, right? Well, guess who writes the books that wind up in Dewey 070? Journalists. They also write in the 300’s and the 900’s. Mapes and Rather each have books, and each have written in defense of a flawed news report. Each continues to believe that Bush’s service in TANG was somehow less than honorable.
It’s Not All Politics. Well, Okay, Maybe It Is.
Why would a significant portion of the country continue to advocate fighting a war that can’t be won and, even if it can be won, probably shouldn’t be fought in the first place? What? No, I’m not talking about Iraq. I’m talking about Global Warming.
You’re probably confused because I jumped straight into my closing argument without arguing the beginning first.
Ask a teenager, any teenager, who is the preeminent expert on Global Warming? If he doesn’t say “Huh?” because you used the word “preeminent”, he’ll probably say AlGore. And he’d be wrong. There are many scientific problems with AlGore’s book, not the least of which is the simple fact that he ignores the problem of Global Warming on Mars. What’s that got to do with anything, you ask. Well, if Mars is undergoing a similar period of global warming, and there are no humans on Mars, then how can anything that we humans do be attributed as the largest contributor to the phenomenon? What is the single factor affecting climate that both Mars and Earth have in common? Right, the Sun. So, why would people who believe that humans adversely affect the natural order of things advocate that humans intervene in a natural process?
Well, because that’s not really what it’s about. It’s about power. It’s about political systems.
One of my favorite reference items to hand out to college kids looking for sources on Global Warming is the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek. It contains an article on the Global Cooling crisis and mentions possible options like melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with a black soot, and diverting arctic rivers. That was only 32 years ago.
A scientific consensus is not proof. It is the lack of proof that signals the need for a consensus. We no longer require a consensus to say that the moon revolves around the Earth. It is an accepted fact. We need a consensus to say that CO2 is the key ingredient to Global Warming because the competing theory is that solar radiation is the key ingredient, and we have no control over the Sun. If it’s solar radiation, there is no solution, and therefore no grant money. And this, my friend, is why AlGore ignores Mars.
Edit ~ by the way, contrary to popular belief, the climate is not now hotter than it’s ever been. It’s hotter now than it’s been in recorded history, which in temperature recording is only since the late 1800’s. You know that place, Greenland? The place that’s so cold even the Canadians don’t want it? The place when they were figuring out who got what, the Danes kinda looked around before raising their hand and saying “Yeah, sure, why not? We’ll take it.”? Yeah, that place. It was called Greenland because the Vikings actually thought it looked like a pleasant place to live. Of course, that was before the Little Ice Age came along and they all froze to death. We still haven’t fully recovered from that little episode yet.
So, I ask again, why would a significant portion of the country continue to advocate fighting a war that can’t be won and, even if it can be won, probably shouldn’t be fought in the first place?
But more importantly, when choosing books for the collection, should my section on climate change include all theories, only those theories accepted by a consensus, or only the theories I agree with, and should I try to influence the researchers selection of the materials available to him when I’m asked for assistance?
Lies and Damn Lies.
By far, my biggest concern in selecting non-fiction books is when the book in question is known to be suspect from the beginning. Two recent books have major problems, and both are books that you can’t not have. Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid is one example. There were so many problems with the book that Kenneth W. Stein actually resigned as Executive Director of the Carter Center, and wrote an extended rebuttal to the book in The Middle East Quarterly.
Another problem is George Tenet’s book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA which similarly has factual problems, not the least of which is a very vivid recounting of a conversation he had on the steps of the White House on September 12th, 2001 with Richard Perle in which Perle supposedly said “Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility.” The problem: Perle was in France on the 12th and, since airlines were grounded, was unable to return to the US until the 15th. Perle says that not only did he not say that on September 12th, he never said that.
So what do I do? Here I have two books, one by a former President of the United States, the other by a former CIA chief who, under two different Presidents, was perhaps one of the most important actors at the dawn of the twenty-first century, and neither source can be trusted. It’s fine, if you begin your research with the understanding that these sources have problems, or in the process of researching you discover that others point to these flaws, but what about the poor kid who really just wants the bare minimum of sources. Suppose he’s doing a report on President Bush and the only two books he checks out are by Mapes and Rather. He gets the same story, twice, and they’re both wrong.
I have a concern. I liked non-fiction a lot more before I became a reference librarian.
me said,
May 17, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Someone’s on their soapbox today.
First, I must object. You said: “But if you ask why they went into journalism in the first place… They usually answer that they are interested in being an advocate, or an activist, or a means of change.” Nope. I was a journalist, went to school for it and everything, but the reason is becasue I am a writer and I figured I’d make more money writing for a newspaper than writing books. (I was young and stupid.) I am no longer a reporter, by fate and by choice. I can’t stand the reporters who want to make change, who go chasing someone down with a microphone screaming “Why did you steal from little old ladies!” (And I hated trying to get families of victims of horrible crimes/deaths to talk to me, and I really really hated staking out lottery winner’s home for 6 hours hoping he’d talk to me when he finally got home after 10 pm.) I don’t want to change the world. That would take too much effort. I just want to write about it.
Plus, I hate all the things about being a reporter that you mentioned, the influence/bias stuff. It really is all politics. (for example, I was not allowed to mention the above-mentioned mega-millions lottery winner was also a convicted pedophile/rapist…)
Next, I do not think the world is not ready for a female anchor. Does anyone remember Jessica Savitch?! My idol. OK, sure, she had drug problems and she’s dead, but still. Katie is going down in flames because she’s trying to be too damn cutsey and fashionable and not treating it as what it is: verbal delivery of news people want and need to hear.
as for the glocal warming thing, people have short term memories and want instant gratification (along with everything you said.) The global climate changed back and forth several tiems over het millenia, jsut no one was around to record it. But I do defintely think we need less smog and less polluted waters, etc, and that it will help, a bit, with the climate issues.
As for your delimma on which books: that’s easy. Buy them all. (I’m a book lover, so that’s an easy question for me.)
OK, you can have your soapbox back now.
me said,
May 17, 2007 at 12:52 pm
what, my big long reply rant didn’t show up?
me said,
May 17, 2007 at 12:52 pm
oops nevermind
Crystal* said,
May 17, 2007 at 2:38 pm
A little known fact…I work full-time at a library. And while I’m not up-to-speed on all the latest as you so obviously are (I’m a simple circulation clerk)…I must say I hate Ann Coulter.
There.
I’m done now.
Grins*
Sheryl said,
May 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I went into journalism for a lot of the same reasons Me did. I didn’t pursue it because I wanted to change the world. Seriously. I wanted my words to have meaning without the constraints of attempting to be unbiased. I’m incapable.
When it comes to the library though, it infuriates me that we buy a slew of books that only tell one side of the tale - the Chief Librarian’s view of the world. I thought libraries were supposed to be the least political institutions available. How naive of me.
Yes I see the contradiction between my interpretation of journalism and libraries. Perhaps it’s because I’m Canadian. We’re seriously messed up between the British and American influences, we tend to pick and choose what we support.
Interesting post, even if it did have the feel of a 3am rant.
orangehands said,
May 17, 2007 at 5:56 pm
what happened to my post? you don’t love me- not that one- anymore, do you?
*sigh*
and i didn’t even mention that you didn’t do an excerpt. (well, i didn’t in the other post).
orangehands said,
May 17, 2007 at 5:58 pm
ok, if this thing shows up three times, i’m sorry. i’m breaking it up into pieces now:
i broke my resposne into four parts, i’ll have you know:
Bias:
I agree that reporters are biased (i don’t know why they got into the business, i care about their finished product), but i think it goes all the ways. conservatives are biased toward conservatives, liberals are biased toward liberals, farmers are biased toward farmers, etc. To come anywhere close to the true story you’d have to read about fifty thousands articles on the same thing and even then you’d have to fill in the blanks for part of it. and considering most people get their news from a major news channel or newspaper, not very comforting.
and if you want to talk about wasted wars, how about the war on drugs?
orangehands said,
May 17, 2007 at 5:59 pm
global warming:
whether global warming is itself real (and i believe it is in the sense that part of the problem is human-based), i think we need to change how we treat the environment period. we need to stop using resources like we have an unlimited amount and start using new (and by new, some of this stuff was invented in the 70s and earlier) technologies, for both environmental and political reasons (oil anyone? though that is hardly the only thing). we are not environmentally healthy, and i believe it is going to (and is starting to) bite us in the ass. besides, smelling smog and drinking dirty water (and this is the stuff from the bottles) and eating chemical-loaded foods is not helping my body any, so we can still bring it back to basic self-interest, always a favorite.
some (basic) arguments about Mars:
1) the points used to connect global warming on earth to humans (not to say it is only humans, but that they have played a role) has come over a lot of years of study, research, etc. the warming on other planets doesn’t have facts from very far back. (i think we’ve been looking at Mars temperatures for the last 30 yrs, and only really in-depth for the last decade)
2) one explanation is that the warming of earth is linked to the increase in solar irradiance, but others say that from about 1999 to 2005, the sun became less luminous.
3) one theory about Mars climate change has to do with the planet’s orbit and tilt. there is also the theory that Mars temperature is extremely affected by the dust storms.
Bryan said,
May 17, 2007 at 5:59 pm
OH, I wrote this for you, honest. It’s from… my dissertation, yeah… the one… my wife… uh, Morgan Fairchild proofread…. yeah.
orangehands said,
May 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm
and now my last part didn’t show up!
the other stuff:
you said “Ask a teenager, any teenager, who is the preeminent expert on Global Warming?”
ok, teenagers (i’m going to focus on USA ones here) can’t name even three (two…one…) Cabinet member. some couldn’t tell you what country we fought with (or against) for WWII…WWI…Revolutionary War…some couldn’t tell you where Korea is if you handed them a map (i once helped a friend do a film project where she asked a group of about 25 randomly chosen students where Belize is…one girl knew it, and she had family from there). i am a teenager, but i’m the first to admit that while there are some fighting against a good deal and are very smart, it seems the the majority couldn’t tell you one presidential hopeful for 2008 or where the hell Iraq is or even tell one Supreme Court member. teenagers are not that political (or anything) orienteted. and you can’t find that many adults who know the expert on Global Warming either, or can name some Cabinet members, or find England on a map.
(ahem, let me- not that one- just get down from here now).
orangehands said,
May 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm
and last but not least, i think you need to have those books there anyways, and hope some kids and adults will care enough to find out more. because even if the book is talking about stuff we have known isn’t true for hundreds of years, to not put it up can be seen as a form of censorship. and if librarians start to censor, who the hell can we turn to?
just my 46 cents.
this is probably the TUMF all over again
orangehands said,
May 17, 2007 at 6:01 pm
bryan: be careful. i’m in college. i have a LOT of excerpts from “stories” (aka articles). and none of them are fun!
orangehands said,
May 17, 2007 at 6:02 pm
:)
ok, class started. i need to go pay attention now. i’ll be back later.
Bryan said,
May 17, 2007 at 6:20 pm
OH,
Your comment was tagged as spam (actually 3 or 4 of them) due to the length, but they were intact and awaiting moderation. Since you have reposted, I’ll delete the other versions. Just know that you could have left it and I would have approved it.
I’m going to let you have your say here without diluting it with a rebutal (and also without agreeing on the points I do agree with) because my intention is not to have a debate about the issues I brought up. As you say, there is a lot of one-sided material out there. Really, the post is about the difficulties of selecting when the material is known to be flawed and yet still calling it non-fiction.
But I will publicly agree with you on one point: we never want to be in a situation where the library is a means of censorship. That’s only half a step away from book burning.
Bryan said,
May 17, 2007 at 6:29 pm
One other note about one-sided materials. There is a difference between the proposition of a theory and and advocacy for an issue. The advocate writes from the perspective of “this is the truth and everyone else is lying to you”. The true scientist makes a proposal, backs it up with science, offers explanations as to why his theory is better than the other theory, but never writes as if his theory is fact. Facts are proven by science, not consensus. And thirty years ago, the consensus was that we were heading into a new ice-age. If we had acted on that consensus then, we would have tried to melt the ice caps. If global warming is indeed occurring (regardless of the cause) that would have been a disaster. What will the consensus be thirty years from now?
I’d be happy to debate you on the issue, but I’d prefer to do it through e-mail. Your choice.
GatorPerson said,
May 17, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I just wanted annuder story. And some peace. And what did I get? OK, so I’ll chime in.
There ain’t much basic science research anymore. It’s correlations looking at large populations (or not so large). Correlations AIN’T cause and effect, regardless of what those epidemiologists seem to think. Lots of what Gore said needs to be done, because it’s the right thing to do. But much can’t be proven and shouldn’t be tauted as a given.
I watch almost no TV anymore, and definitely no news. Too much glitz and little substance. I read 2 newspapers and take the average. I even quit watching the Weather Channel because it got too glitzy. Now I check the radar here, and that’s enough.
There’s been a trend in companies in the last couple of decades to achieve the quarterly Wall Street predictions with respect to sales/profits/dividends/whatever. This trend is also seen in the news media companies. They’re not immune. Glitz increases sales/profits/dividends/whatever.
Don’t censor what to buy. Just buy lots more so there’s plenty to choose from.
And where were you when Kennedy was shot?
BCB said,
May 17, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Bryan, it really pains me to say this. Really. It does.
You are SO going to hate my book. Just absolutely hate it. Because I basically start with a grain of truth, take advantage of a great deal of suspicion, add a conspiracy, and then twist the hell out of everything. And did I mention I was raised up in the great state of MN as a liberal democrat? Probably you and I should not even be speaking to each other.
I think you should stock plenty copies of my book in your library, though. IF I ever finish writing it and IF it gets published. To balance all that other stuff. At least I admit mine is fiction.
As for the rest of it, just stock one of everything.
me said,
May 17, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Morgan Fairchild?!
McB said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:12 am
When people write nonfiction books it tends to be because its something they feel very strongly about and want to get their point of view across. This is true regardless of what side of any argument you are on. And because it is something they feel strongly about, they tend to wear blinders when it comes to opposing arguments. Again, its true of both sides of any argument.
A corollary to the argument that people only write to express one side - theirs - is that most people only read things that lean towards their own views. Conservatives ignore what’s written by liberals and liberals ignore what conservatives write. Thus both sides remain comfortably insulated from ideas that might challenge their opinions.
The people in the middle? The ones who think neither side is truly right, but each may have a good point? Nobody listens to them. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, but people can’t work up a good head of righteous indignation over gray areas.
GatorPerson said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:05 am
Bryan, are you sure the sources you quoted are any better than the sources they say are incorrect?
orangehands said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:34 pm
bryan: of course you’d post what i said. if you haven’t noticed, i hardly have this thing called patience. (and it’s been declining in recent years, so sad).
book burning *shudder* i admit to bending pages slightly (i know, your librarian heart just gave a little, didn’t it?), but i couldn’t burn a book. i couldn’t. that’s just…sacrilegious. disgusting. horrifying. omibob, someone hold me (that one too), i’m scared.
mmm, let’s find something else to debate about. i could do this one, but it wouldn’t be nearly as much fun as all that other stuff i really believe in. my stance isn’t so much on global warming but just on how we treat our environment and resources. i’m sure we can find something else soon- i’m further left than BCB.
GP: i wasn’t born yet. but i’m pretty sure my mom was at a dental appt. and my dad was probably being a bonehead at the time, as that was his normal state of existence. still is, come to think of it.
MCB: i like reading other people’s side. it’s important to learn what the other side believes, and says. i like learning about other people’s positions. of course, i’m an anomaly wrapped up in an enigma wrapped up in a smart-ass.
Sheryl said,
May 19, 2007 at 11:31 am
I’m at work at the library right now researching a topic for a patron. We have five conflicting reports about what’s really happening/ed. How do you know which to believe? Facts. I know. But if I don’t fly to Alaska or understand physiology or know shotgun gauges,(three different topics if you’re trying to figure it out) I have to rely on reliable sources for my information. Who is reliable?
GatorPerson said,
May 19, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Me. Snort!