Los Angeles Times Executive Editor John Carroll delivered a scathing critique of modern “pseudo-journalism” at the School of Journalism and Communication’s annual Ruhl Lecture last week. The words were inspiring — at least for journalists who want to root out and destroy the trend — and frightening at the same time.
Probably the most important and uplifting aspect of Carroll’s speech was his dedication to and fierce defense of the American public that many newspaper reporters and editors display across America, although those who buy into the “liberal media” myth will disagree. Carroll’s primary examples of such dedication were current events at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
Specifically, Carroll pointed out that The New York Times staff members, who were already disgruntled about what they viewed as a bureaucratic management style, demanded accountability at the highest levels when Jayson Blair was exposed for his fabrications and dirty journalistic tactics.
Carroll even criticized his own paper to demonstrate what he saw as many journalists’ strong desire to support traditional journalistic goals of accurately informing the public. Before Carroll was editor, a scandal raged at the Los Angeles Times when it was revealed that the paper, which had monetary interests in the newly constructed Staples Center, was involved in secret deals to cover the arena in exchange for advertising.
Again, the staff demanded accountability, and 300 staff members signed a letter calling for an internal investigation.
While these two unfortunate events may paint a bleak picture of ethics at America’s most prestigious newspapers, the simple fact that the staffs of these newsrooms put journalistic credibility above business and profits is the saving grace.
But much of Carroll’s lecture was focused on “pseudo-journalists,” and he called out what he views as a tendency among many other media outlets, namely Fox News Channel, to mislead the public.
To this end, Carroll used two specific examples to expose the trend. The first was a study showing that at least 80 percent of Fox News Channel’s viewers believed at least one of the following misconceptions: That weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, that a connection between al-Qaida and Iraq had been found or that the war in Iraq was widely supported around the world. He added that the number was 57 percent lower for those who received news primarily from public news broadcasting.
The second example was a blatant demonstration of the bias that Fox News Channel commentator Bill O’Reilly uses to accomplish the “gotcha!” spirit of his show, and subsequently draws in viewers who are not interested in real news. Carroll described an incident in November 2003 when O’Reilly attacked the Los Angeles Times for exposing then-California governor candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger’s history of sexual harassment. On the show, O’Reilly said “Do you think the L.A. Times sent a squad of reporters to Arkansas to investigate Bill Clinton’s problems with women? No, it did not.”
Carroll pointed out that O’Reilly’s critique was not only off-base but completely inaccurate; The Los Angeles Times printed a 4,000-word exclusive on Dec. 21, 1993 about Clinton’s “troopergate” sex scandal.
Evidently, as Carroll jokingly noted, Fox News Channel employees don’t have access to computers, or they may have been able to do a Lexis-Nexis search. O’Reilly never apologized or acknowledged his error.
Sadly, most who shared O’Reilly’s view were more concerned about whether the newspaper had an agenda than the reality that the potential new governor had a history of harassment. Carroll responded to these enraged people in an editorial, writing, “At the risk of offending still more readers, I’ll say that if you’re put off by investigative reporting, this probably won’t be the right newspaper for you in the years to come.”
So if the “news” produced by these Fox-like pseudo-journalists is so unethical and deceptive, why does it attract such large audiences? Carroll said today’s viewers and readers are so angry about one thing or another that the adversarial system of media works to draw them in to the circus. And that makes sense, especially if you look at the weekly Nielsen Media Research ratings: Bill O’Reilly and Hannity and Colmes all consistently rotate to make the top two. The only problem is these talking heads don’t do news; they do controversy, fear and the worst kind of tabloid journalism imaginable.
And ultimately, the public is the sucker.