Here are four items:
1. Fraser Nelson says “The internet is the perfect medium for lie-detecting”, whereas much of the MSM has allowed Gordon Brown’s lies about spending to go unchecked.
2. PZ Myers complains about a BBC report that doesn’t question creationists sufficiently. He says:
1. Fraser Nelson says “The internet is the perfect medium for lie-detecting”, whereas much of the MSM has allowed Gordon Brown’s lies about spending to go unchecked.
2. PZ Myers complains about a BBC report that doesn’t question creationists sufficiently. He says:
Every article about creationism needs to eschew the subtleties and pound hard on the obvious, that creationism is bunk and its proponents are ignorant.
3. In last week’s Radio 4 Feedback (5'30" in), Roger Bolton asked why the BBC hadn’t checked whether Ukip’s claim that three-quarters of our laws start in Europe. The Beeb’s Rick Bailey replies that this claim isn’t a matter of fact but of political dispute.
4. Gaby Charing complains that the Guardian is not taking a stand on whether Caryl Churchill’s play Seven Jewish Children is anti-semitic or not.
There’s a common theme here, about the nature of journalism. In all four cases we have a complaint that journalists are not reporting the truth, but merely putting both sides of the story, and leaving their audience to make up their mind.
But which should journalists do? I’m somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, it would be insufferably pompous and arrogant for a journalist to say, even implicitly: “here is the truth.” And in some cases - such as lots of economic forecasts - the truth is simply unobtainable and presenting two sides of an argument (“bond yields will rise”, “no they won’t”) can be good enough.
On the other hand, though, I’ve (at least) four gripes with the notion that it’s sufficient to report both sides:
1. It can feed primitive tribalism. To take Fraser’s example, Labour supporters might believe ministers who say Labour will increase spending, even though the evidence - the Red Book - says otherwise.
2. It's unscientific. What matters is not opinion and quotes, but evidence. To pretend that opinions suffice, without gathering evidence, is anti-scientific. Which is itself a form of bias. And a pernicious one. Gathering and examining evidence is one of the most powerful devices we have for generating not just intellectual progress but inter-subjective agreement. Without it, we’re just throwing rocks at each other.
3. It can give the impression of doubt where little exists. The classic case here is the MMR scare, where the media’s failure to examine empirical evidence (or the absence thereof!) led it to - ahem - exaggerate the danger of the MMR vaccine. As Ben Goldacre says:
4. Gaby Charing complains that the Guardian is not taking a stand on whether Caryl Churchill’s play Seven Jewish Children is anti-semitic or not.
There’s a common theme here, about the nature of journalism. In all four cases we have a complaint that journalists are not reporting the truth, but merely putting both sides of the story, and leaving their audience to make up their mind.
But which should journalists do? I’m somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, it would be insufferably pompous and arrogant for a journalist to say, even implicitly: “here is the truth.” And in some cases - such as lots of economic forecasts - the truth is simply unobtainable and presenting two sides of an argument (“bond yields will rise”, “no they won’t”) can be good enough.
On the other hand, though, I’ve (at least) four gripes with the notion that it’s sufficient to report both sides:
1. It can feed primitive tribalism. To take Fraser’s example, Labour supporters might believe ministers who say Labour will increase spending, even though the evidence - the Red Book - says otherwise.
2. It's unscientific. What matters is not opinion and quotes, but evidence. To pretend that opinions suffice, without gathering evidence, is anti-scientific. Which is itself a form of bias. And a pernicious one. Gathering and examining evidence is one of the most powerful devices we have for generating not just intellectual progress but inter-subjective agreement. Without it, we’re just throwing rocks at each other.
3. It can give the impression of doubt where little exists. The classic case here is the MMR scare, where the media’s failure to examine empirical evidence (or the absence thereof!) led it to - ahem - exaggerate the danger of the MMR vaccine. As Ben Goldacre says:
The actual scientific content of stories was brushed over and replaced with didactic statements from authority figures on either side of the debate, which contributed to a pervasive sense that scientific advice is somehow arbitrary, and predicated upon a social role - the “expert” - rather than on empirical evidence.
4. It panders to the powerful. If journalism merely reports different opinions, the victor will be not the person with the best evidence, but the one with the most credibility, or the most airtime and exposure. These will generally be figures in “authority”, those able to best play the media game. For example, during the miners’ strike in 1984-85, Arthur Scargill claimed than dozens of pits would be closed and jobs lost for life. The Tory government disagreed. Few people believed the loony leftie Scargill. But he was right.
There is, then, much to be said against the allegedly objective reporting of two sides of the story - as Alexander Cockburn wonderfully parodied here. But what to put in its place?
There is, then, much to be said against the allegedly objective reporting of two sides of the story - as Alexander Cockburn wonderfully parodied here. But what to put in its place?
Fraser Nelson's problem is caused by the Lobby system of mutual back scratching. Scrap it and have all government briefings open to all.
The second issue is the bizarre belief that the BBC or any organisation can be impartial and objective. Scrap the rules and let broadcasters be as biased as they want. I doubt we see much difference.
Posted by: Kit | June 16, 2009 at 04:56 PM
I'd be more convinced by Fraser Nelson's oooh, Labour lies, bad Labour narrative, if his own commentary wasn't stupid bordering on misleading to an equal degree...
On your point 4, that rather relies on the belief that the pits would have been closed had the NUM been moderate. The fact that the steel industry union was moderate, and we make as much steel now as we did in 1978, may be relevant here (and may not, but I can't see how your counterfactual is any more relevant than mine...)
Posted by: john b | June 16, 2009 at 05:05 PM
I still hate your HTML-stripping ways.
http://www.johnband.org/blog/2009/05/29/longer-fraser-nelson/
http://www.johnband.org/blog/2009/03/13/fraser-nelson-ignorance-and-paranoia-in-one-simple-package/
Posted by: john b | June 16, 2009 at 05:05 PM
@ John B - I agree that Fraser's reporting has sometimes been very wrong.
But this shows why I'm ambivalent on this issue; a journalism that pursues the "truth" can degenerate into a morass of misunderstanding.
Posted by: chris | June 16, 2009 at 05:25 PM
Exactly that; I should probably have been clearer that was what I meant...
Posted by: john b | June 16, 2009 at 05:31 PM
And his famous claim that New Orleans was a richer city than London. He was comparing household income with individual income, which I told him but I never saw a correction.
Posted by: Matthew | June 16, 2009 at 06:01 PM
A journalist cannot tell anyone the truth - he can only tell them whatever he thinks is the truth.
Off topic, "the miners’ strike in 1984-85" is an interesting choice of example. I wonder how many people there are who have complained about the government not spending enough money subsidising the coal industry, and who have also complained about the government not doing enough to avert global warming.
Posted by: ad | June 16, 2009 at 07:51 PM
The problem in all 4 (or at least first 3) examples seems not to be that both sides are heard, which is fine, but that the journos in question didn't bother to look at any of the evidence for themselves.
Posted by: Joe Otten | June 17, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Joe Otten has it exactly right. The BBC does it all the time. This morning, for example, they interviewed someone from Iran's state-sponsored Press TV, who, funnily enough, said Ahmedinejad had genuinely won the election. It is much easier to find someone with an axe to grind than someone with expertise, but it is not proper journalism.
Posted by: Nicole S | June 17, 2009 at 09:09 PM
And a lot of it reflects a switch from bank deposits to securities; foreigners “other investments” in the UK, http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html
Posted by: rolex daytona | December 27, 2009 at 04:48 PM