Journalists and news organizations in the
U.S. and elsewhere are increasingly wrestling with how to deal with
alternative facts, untruths, and lies spread by political figures, government
officials, and their supporters. These are not merely moral issues for
journalists, but also will influence the sustainability of news organizations.
Neither accurately reporting false
statements, nor reporting and challenging them, are adequate responses to
continual misuse of the media and deliberate efforts to use the media to
mislead the public. This, of courses, raises the thorny question of when to
deny media access and coverage to individuals noted for engaging in those acts.
How they are handled depends upon their
position. Elected officials should be treated differently than their advisors,
aides, and supportive commentators and apologists. This occurs because elected
officials and party leaders are accountable to the public through the ballot
box, whereas others are not.
When elected officials or party leaders are
untruthful they should be continually challenged and their lies exposed. When
others are involved, journalists should not merely challenge and expose their
lies, however. Journalists and their news organizations must not allow
themselves to become pawns in manipulation and propagandistic efforts and should
stop inviting those who would do so onto public affairs shows, not interview them for
news stories, and not cover their public appearances.
These practices are designed to halt influence from those who are consistent
purveyors of untruths and continually spread falsehoods. Their lack of
intention to engage in open discussion and honest debate makes them unsuitable
for exposure in serious journalistic forums. There are others with similar views
who can fulfil those requirements.
Journalists have obligations to their
readers, listeners, and viewers and society to pursue truth and facilitate healthy
and truthful debate that presents differing perspectives. But they also have obligations to ensure that serial liars, wanton
propagandists, and inflammatory speakers who deliberately distort and do not
engage in honest debate are not provided platforms.
This is important because research shows
that original claims are better remembered and given more credibility than media
challenges and corrections, especially those coming 24-48 hours later.
Choices to deny access or coverage should be made only to determine how issues, ideas, and policies are discussed and presented in media and by whom, not to stop their discussion or examination. Decisions of who will speak should be based on the past behavior of individuals. Denials of
access and coverage should occur to individuals who are likely to deceive or deliberately
confuse, thus harming the public and their understanding of public issues.
These are challenging times for democracy
and for journalists. Great care in how ideas, policies, and claims are
presented is necessary to ensure that citizens are effectively served by
journalism. If journalism cannot rise to the occasion in difficult periods, there is
little reason for it to exist. If news organizations and journalists do not act,
they risk their sustainability. Lack of relevance, loss of credibility, and
diminished trust will do more to promote the demise of firms than any changes to its
technologies and business model.
No comments:
Post a Comment