When Words Mock the Truth
I’ve never forgotten the one simple rule of ethical news writing that my journalism professor impressed upon us eager reporters-to-be. It is the fundamental premise of good journalism that states that when writing a news story, you practice “interpretative reporting.” You thoroughly fact-check information you take from events and reliable sources, and you interpret the facts. He admonished us never to try to shape public opinion with our words. Unless, of course, we were writing an OpEd piece. “The Golden Rule of Journalism” as demonstrated in many of today’s news cycles, is lost. For seniors, like me, we are just as upset as younger people about media manipulation of public opinion and undue influence of the media. It’s dismaying because nowadays many reporters and journalists are not dispassionate when writing news stories; they seem emotionally charged, particularly when reporting politics. They can’t resist bloating their stories with demagogic language, which often has the delicacy of an erupting volcano. Snark and sass seem to be operative words in some journalists’ lexicon.
Unless it supports their political persuasion, the media-consuming public is apt to react with suspicion to news that includes inflammatory language, or that which aims to influence, unless they are direct quotes from a source. The public expects objective, descriptive language that does not skew the meaning of the story. Outrageous language diminishes consumers’ trust in news stories and their purveyors, and the entities and events about which they are written.
The term “fake news.” first recorded in 1800–20 as meaning “false or spurious news,” reappeared in 2010–15, often in the rhetoric of Donald Trump. In Julie Mastrine’s excellent article, 11 Types of Media Bias featured in AllSides, a site that advances truth in reporting, she writes that 72 percent of Americans believe traditional news sources report fake news, falsehoods, or content that is purposely misleading. With trust in media declining, consumers must learn to spot types of bias. She further examines some of the most egregious news stories authored by reporters who should know better. They are offenses of “spin media bias,” “unsubstantiated claims,” “opinion statements presented as facts,” “sensationalism/emotionalism,” and so forth.
News editors expect reporters to hand them stories with attention-getting headlines, and powerful, descriptive words that resonate with readers. It can be tempting, though, to pepper a story with incendiary words, particularly if the report covers a violent incident that has political overtones. Such words can subtly assign blame to those involved. If the writer is biased, this achieves the intent. Without their realizing it, the news consumer is often affected by such devices as turns-of-the-phrase and the manner in which an interviewee responds to hostile questions. A statement as simple as “he denied the allegation…” is often persuasive in casting doubt on the honesty of a public figure.
Lastly, it’s not what is reported in left or right-leaning media reports that are just as critical in shaping opinion. How many potential voters on the left in the recent election saw television clips of Joe Biden that suggest he might have cognitive issues. Or, how many right-wing voters saw clips of Donald Trump’s shocking statements. The liberal and conservative media, respectively, simply did not show those clips. Unless they support consumers’ belief-system, they won’t tune in.
The best weapon that the reading, viewing, and listening public can wield is to “read between the lines.” The book titled Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, while no longer in print, is available and worth the read. It gave us students the tools to separate the authentic from the suspect.
