Cynical commentators sometimes say that we live in a “post-truth world.” Since nobody can seem to agree on the basic facts of life, we get caught up in a tug-of-war in which both sides of any given issue counter factual claims with those of their own. This, then, is a major reason why there seems to be no grounds for consensus regarding contentious issues: If we can’t even agree on the basic facts, then we can’t build a base upon which to forge agreement and compromise. Especially since the COVID-19 lockdowns—which future historians will surely point to as an inflection point—major issues of public import have been nearly impossible to pin down, since everyone has their own source of information.
Take any controversy from the past three years—the killing of George Floyd, the affirmative action litigation in front of the Supreme Court, Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent invasion of Gaza—and notice how it fits into this analysis. Some sort of event happens, reporters rush to the scene and cover the news, and then others rush in to debunk what the first reporters said. The result is a confused jumble of half-truths masquerading as objective reality. There’s often a disturbing lack of nuance in the narratives that emerge from each side of the issue because conceding that one side got something right is to capitulate in our never-ending war of information.
Of course, the shock troops in this war are the media outlets that cover these events. Journalists from the so-called mainstream media are often the first on the scene, since prestige newspapers and cable TV stations in New York and Washington have the resources to send in their reporters. These reporters have a tough job: They need to interview witnesses, get up to speed on local sources of tension, and deliver copy to their editors within hours of their first arrival. Once the reporters set the scene, the opposition swoops in to scrutinize every detail of the original reporting. This often reveals mistakes inevitably made by the original reporters, which calls into question the validity of the narrative already promulgated by that side. And the original reporters, in a bid to protect their reputations, often double down on their mistakes instead of owning up to them.
This was already a problem before the age of the Internet, but it’s only gotten worse since then. Amateur sleuths with extra time on their hands and sizable followings can spend hours playing detective and tearing apart the established narrative. And the inevitable conclusion—often explicitly stated by those investigators—is that the mainstream media are in cahoots with one another and therefore can’t be trusted to deliver the truth.
Living in a post-truth world is unsettling. It can feel impossible to grasp the contours of a complex situation in global affairs. Certain media outlets feel untrustworthy, while others seem untested. Where can you turn for information in such a twisted and uncertain situation?
Some people have ready answers to this question. They take it as a given that the mainstream media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, etc.—cannot be trusted under any circumstances. Everything those outlets produce is suspect because the heads of those organizations are part of a shadowy cabal that pulls the strings of world affairs like puppet masters with an agenda. The only people you can trust, then, are those who eschew traditional journalistic standards and unearth heretofore hidden sources of information with dubious provenances. (Alex Jones comes to mind here.) And because people love to feel like they possess information that others do not, they flock to these prophets of alternative facts and hang on their every word. Oftentimes, these charlatans are charismatic, which is why people like Tucker Carlson—a man so outside of the mainstream that he was fired by FOX News, itself considered by many to be on the outskirts of respectable opinion—can rack up considerable followings on social media.
I have always had my doubts about the validity of the mainstream media. And for a time, I flirted with alternative sources of news, though they were considerably less fringy than Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones. But I am deeply concerned by the popularity of figures like these men (and others), who have capitalized on the distrust that the mainstream outlets have so deserved to offer up visions of the world that do not comport with reality. The events of January 6 are a harbinger of what may be to come if we don’t snap out of our collective delusion and begin rallying around a shared quest for truth.
As I suggested, I think that the mainstream media do have much to answer regarding this state of affairs. Time and again, credulous news reports have amplified some of the silliest excesses of the left. What’s worse is that these mainstream outlets cover themselves with a fig leaf of objectivity. They claim to have no horse in any race that they are reporting on, even as they publish stories that are dripping with left-wing political bias. When a newspaper’s staff revolts against its opinion editor and gets him fired for deigning to publish an op/ed by a sitting (Republican) U.S. senator, it’s hard to suggest that there’s no political bias among the staff of that paper.
But left-wing bias among the news media is not a result of influential moneymen playing marionettist. Instead, it’s a cultural process whereby progressives self-select into reporting careers and then don’t question the received orthodoxies of their tribe. When you live and work among people who share 90 percent or more of your own views, it’s easy to look askance at those who object to your version of reality.
So, I agree that there’s left-wing bias among many reporters (though I think many of them do a decent job of suppressing that for the purposes of their reporting). But what’s the answer? Surely it’s not to establish a competing set of institutions whose sole purpose is to reject everything the New York Times writes.
I see two alternatives. The first is for news organizations to commit themselves wholly to objectivity. I’m not sure exactly what this looks like in action, but I suspect it means curating an editorial board of diverse interlocutors who all feel comfortable challenging what each other says and who are willing to accept objective reality that doesn’t jibe with their own views. One example of this is the newsletter 1440, named after the year in which the printing press was invented. I’ve been reading their newsletter for a couple of months now, and while I don’t find it to be perfect, it does a pretty good job of reporting the news objectively.
The other alternative is for news outlets to state their biases up front but still commit to reporting as objectively as possible. This approach recognizes that all human beings have political biases and reveals those of the organization as a way of building trust among their readers. My favorite example of this type is The Dispatch, founded by Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg. I’ve been reading The Dispatch since it was founded in late-2019 and have found it to be an invaluable source of information.
There are obviously flaws to both of these methods. In the “objective” approach, it’s hard to actually ensure objectivity. Consider, for instance, the fact that today’s mainstream outlets purport to be objective, even if it’s clear they fall short of that lofty goal. Worse, every time that the underlying biases of the objective outlet bubble up, the outlet loses the trust of its readers.
On the other hand, the “subjective” approach isn’t necessarily ideal. If all news outlets proclaimed their political biases, then to be a truly informed citizen you’d need to read several different accounts of an incident to feel educated on it. And the very act of declaring your biases implicitly rejects the notion that there is objectivity in the first place. That in itself could erode trust in the news media.
Either way, it’s clear that today’s warped media environment isn’t doing anyone any favors (except, perhaps the enemies of America). Conflicting news accounts and alternative histories are contributing to our ever-increasing political polarization and making it harder to coexist peacefully with those with whom we disagree. When Americans are rioting in the streets or on the steps of the Capitol because they believe in different truths, we know we’ve messed up somewhere several steps back. These are the first casualties in our information wars. The way out is not to take up arms and obliterate the other side. The solution is to find common ground by establishing norms and routines that ensure the validity of the news. And despite their pleas to the contrary, Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson aren’t the ones with a firm toehold on reality.
I do remember Joe Friday, although at that time in my life I thought the 'facts' were 'obvious' . Today facts to me are not as obvious. You note the "Newsletter 1440' is pretty good of reporting the news objectively. Question--- according to who? I must confess that if I agree with the reporting, then I tend to believe it is 'fact/objective'. I do listen to PBS (NEPM in this area) often and tend to believe in their 'facts'. I also have worked hard at listening to my friends/family and colleagues and as they talk about incidents we both were part of; there are many times I believe we 'see the facts differently'. This topic you have raised Gregory is rather important, and I really don't have an acceptable answer, for me, in solving it. Listening and searching for different opinions can be helpful, but for example I have a very difficult time listening to the 'Right", especially many on Fox, which limits my 'search for the truth.' So the fact is I was born on 01/08/1943, although is that really true? Who am I believing.? :-)
perfect. you've homed in on one of the big 3. the others IMO being term limits and term limits. "just the facts, ma'am," was a phrase often said by jack webb (as detective joe friday) in the 1960's cop series Dragnet. ron will remember it. when joe was trying to solve a case, any witness or suspect he spoke with would double speak, provide superfluous info, slant it in their direction etc. joe friday would always say, "just the facts, ma'am." that is what we need. just the facts. this race to bias must pay dividends to media companies and influencers but it is killing america. as with most things, it is up to the people to change it. i'm hopeful it can be changed the old-fashioned way (slow and steady pendulum swing, grass roots involvement) but i am cautious. recent events portend the natives are restless. together with slow change, it will take an exogenous uniting event or an incredibly charismatic leader placed at the right time and the right place to bring the kind of change you referred to. while i haven't seen him/her yet, i'm hopeful it's out there.