Mon 16 Jul 2007
Another 3884 words wasted. In the ongoing pseudo-saga of CNN v Michael Moore, we are learning more about modern day journalism than about the health care system. Moore presents a portrait of the richest nation in the world with a worse than second-rate health care system that is mediocre to the people that have it and non-existent for the tens of millions that don’t have it.
Instead of pondering why the national media have rarely gone in depth and uncovered the same rock-bottom outcomes at sky-high prices — they spend their words pulling little contrasting tidbits to the points Moore raises. These tidbits don’t contradict Moore’s points, but they do perform the same “balance” act that Fox uses to water down the main and objective point.
A journalistic principle that has nearly vanished is that spending time/words on a story should be proportional to that topic’s effect on our society and people.
Dissecting a failed health care system, based on bang-for-buck or outcomes, should constitute a lions share of journalistic time and energy. What are the problems? How have countries with great outcomes for low prices succeeded and failed? Why did this topic get attention through a blockbuster movie instead of through the normal channels of our media system? This CNN v Moore controversy is only a controversy by the amount of time wasted on this side-show distraction and not the core issue that is affecting millions.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Amen. The problem is, of course, that “journalistic integrity” is only as sound as the people implementing it. The only repercussions for breaking such a code is the ire of those who uphold it. If your company’s bottom line can be improved by loosening journalistic values, then it’s only a matter of time before they will be forgotten entirely. Fox News has proven that the public will not lynch anyone for poor reporting or even for embellishing the truth.
This hasn’t always been true - at one time, the most objective, investigative source was also usually also the most financially successful. We held media accountable for accuracy and relevance and patronized outlets based on those criteria.
Is that even remotely true anymore? If financial incentives are at odds with principles, we really can’t expect those principles to hold out too long. It’s hard for a news outlet to uphold its journalistic integrity if it goes out of business. Generally, when our social values are at odds with economic incentives, social values lose.
Thus, over time, government has stepped in to support social values when they’re pitted against insurmountable economic incentives to the contrary. Labor unions, consumer testing, the FDA, and countless other regulations were created to ensure that society is favored over business interests. Now, the last thing anyone would want is government somehow over-regulating the media, but shouldn’t there be more than just a voluntary adherence to journalistic virtues?