Could we handle the truth?

[SockPuppet]

Just read this on Poynter and thought it was damn good.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gabler23-2009aug23,0,4834705.story

Here are 3 grafs from the piece that nail it:

Why don't we get the truth? Part of it, as I've said, is fear -- fear that if journalists dispel the rumors they will be bashed by the right, which is implacably against the president's reforms no matter how much sense they make. Part of it is a lack of expertise. Most reporters are not equipped to quickly and authoritatively tell truth from spin on an issue such as healthcare. And part of it, frankly, is sheer laziness.

Telling the truth requires shoe leather. It requires digging up facts that aren't being handed to you, talking to experts, thinking hard about what you find. This isn't easy. It takes time and energy as well as guts, especially when there are conflicting studies, as there are on healthcare. But finally, we may not have a journalism of truth because we haven't demanded one. Many of us are invested in one side of the story; we are for Obama or against him, for healthcare reform or against it. These are a priori positions. Truth won't change them.

Yet the danger of not insisting on the truth in a brave new world of constant lies is that it subjects our policies to whichever side shouts the loudest or has the most money to spend to mislead us. That is likely to lead to disastrous governance: a needless war, a great recession, a continuation of a failing healthcare system.

 

[Songbird]

taibbi wrote a pretty damn good piece on healthcare reform in the current RS.

 

[SockPuppet]

The people that read RS are now informed. But that's not where the rubber meets the road on health care issues. Not many middle-aged white folks read RS.

 

[Ace]

The truth is, that the truth is boring. Easier to write a headline on screaming people with guns.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Not to mention, a lot of the people who've been seeking the truth have been laid off.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

Not sure this phrase doesn't punch a hole in the bottom of the whole "we're not seeking the truth" boat:

there are conflicting studies, as there are on healthcare.

The whole idea of "the truth" (which, coincidentally, jibes neatly with one side's talking points) in this debate is ridiculous.

There's no one black-and-white, you're-right-I'm-wrong "truth" in this debate, or any other difficult political question. That's why it's a difficult political question, and a controversial subject on which objections can fairly be raised on both sides.

This faux-journalistic head-scratching about "the truth" is just a cover for Taibbi's search for a way to best sell the president's agenda. He's perfectly entitled to believe that the "reform" is the best thing for the country, and perfectly entitled to use his not-inconsiderable skills to sell said "reform."

But to pretend that the only reason 100 percent of Americans aren't marching in lockstep to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Orszag/Zeke Emanuel drum is that because they're being denied "a journalism of truth" is wish fulfillment of the most puerile, navel-gazing variety.

 

[dooley_womack1]

It can be a complex issue, and the media can be not covering it as well as they should. Not an either/or thing.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

As Taibbi said, it's a given that a mass media, staffed mostly by (somewhat) well-educated generalists, is going to have trouble covering any complicated story in depth. But the idea that it's happening because we lack "a journalism of truth" is just silly. Equally silly is the idea that professional journalists aren't covering health care reform fairly because they're afraid of being "bashed" by the right.

 

[dooley_womack1]

I'd say we're lacking a "journalism of depth," which is a slightly different point, I guess.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

I'd say it's a very different point, but I'm glad we mostly agree.

 

[Ace]

I am certain a lot of papers have done detailed stories on the health care problems and costs and such in recent years but if no one reads them ....

 

[dooley_womack1]

You're damn right I ordered the code red!

 

[fishwrapper]

Truth is, on any given evening, there are more journalists dedicated to covering the New York Yankees fulltime than Healthcare in America.

 

[SockPuppet]

Sorry, but the point to all this is that journalism/media is failing this country moreso than corrupt politicians.

Journalism's job should be to seek the facts, which should lead to the truth which should lead to writing stories that reduce a complicated story to easy-to-understand levels. That ain't happening anymore and this country is worse off because of it.

Blame the left, the right, Obama, Bush ... but when journalism looks in the mirror it sees shame staring back at it.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

But what "facts" are you looking for? Where are the "facts" that would make the health-care debate an easily digestible issue?

The fact is, they don't exist, no matter how Matt Taibbi pines for them.

 

[SockPuppet]

Hmmmmm, facts such as:

Are there "death" panels?
Is Medicare required once you turn 65?
Will federal health care be mandatory for everyone or a choice?

Kinda like the following facts that each major newspaper should have been printing on their front pages since Day One of the Iraq War:
Number of days in Iraq
Number of U.S. Military casualties
Number (estimated) of civilian casualties
Estimated money spent on the war

Instead, newspapers were more interested in Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, the Academy Awards or whatever fluff they thought would sell papers. Guess that worked out pretty well, didn't it?

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

I don't talk politics anymore on SportsJournalists.com (if I can help it), so I'll confine myself to saying that you're making two arguments here, and neither is very compelling.

I happen to think it's not newspapers' job to go out and confront head-on every iota of spin emanating from politicians, interest groups and blogs. But even if we stipulate to your interpretation that newspapers should take it upon themselves to refute every discredited talking point on both sides, I think plenty of newspapers have answered the three questions you list there in great detail.

It's not newspapers' fault if people aren't persuaded, and it certainly isn't indicative of either journalists' fear of right-wing "bashing" or the absence of Taibbi's nebulous "journalism of truth."

As for your thoughts on Iraq war coverage, you may be showing more of your hand than you should. "Each major newspaper" should publish -- on A1 and daily, no less! -- a context-less list of facts likely to diminish public support for the war, without providing background for the numbers and in addition to the reams of newsprint already devoted to war coverage? Hardly sounds like a politically disinterested "journalism of truth" to me.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

The people that read RS are now informed. But that's not where the rubber meets the road on health care issues. Not many middle-aged white folks read RS.

I'm not sure this is true. People who were in their teens and 20s a few decades ago and reading Rolling Stone still buy it. The magazine still writes about acts from the '60s, '70s and '80s, caters to those who were reading it in its heyday, and just published a cover story about why the Beatles broke up.

I think RS is getting more readership from middle-aged white people than from teen-agers and twentysomethings.

 

[Care Bear]

The people that read RS are now informed. But that's not where the rubber meets the road on health care issues. Not many middle-aged white folks read RS.

I'm not sure this is true. People who were in their teens and 20s a few decades ago and reading Rolling Stone still buy it. The magazine still writes about acts from the '60s, '70s and '80s, caters to those who were reading it in its heyday, and just published a cover story about why the Beatles broke up.

I think RS is getting more readership from middle-aged white people than from teen-agers and twentysomethings.

I was curious. Their latest media kit states the median age is 31 and 78% white. But the core is definitely A18-49.

http://www.srds.com/mediakits/rollingstone/demographics.html

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

taibbi wrote a pretty damn good piece on healthcare reform in the current RS.

I went out of my way to buy this issue and it was an absolute pleasure to read.

This debate reminds me of Blackwater watchdog Jeremy Scahill ripping into NBC's Chuck Todd on Bill Maher last week. Scahill pulled no punches. Todd seemed generally shocked that anyone would question the way he worked.