A Suspicion Confirmed

“That’s my job. I’m a newsman. That’s what I try to do, is make news.”

Those are the words of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, reported in the Washington Times, after former President Bill Clinton accused him of trying to put words in his mouth (the emphasis is mine).

Now, generally, one will not find many words in defense of Bill Clinton in this space. But this is one instance where such a defense is justified, because in Mr. Blitzer’s reply, one can see why so much of the American “news” media has lost its credibility with so many of the American people. There is a problem with far too many of the chroniclers of today’s events.

This writer first noticed the problem a few years ago, when a prominent ABC correspondent tried to prompt some former adversaries to hug one another, when there was no prior indication that they would do so. It was even noticeable in the area of sports journalism when, during the 1999 World Series, NBC’s on-field correspondent tried to pry an apology out of Pete Rose for his crimes against baseball, even after it was obvious that no such apology was coming any time soon.

Such attempts to actually prompt certain specific actions, or comments, on the part of those who are the subject of coverage can be seen on a regular basis by any perceptive viewer. One could add to them the ongoing – and maddening – proliferation of reports that present poll results as news. And they would all point to the same conclusion: Many American media outlets have forgotten what ought to be the proper relationship between themselves and the news they “report.”

Perhaps people should be thankful to Mr. Blitzer for his honesty as he spoke with the former President. In that moment of candor, many Americans had confirmed what they have suspected for some time – Many, if not most, “news” organizations have become more interested in creating news events than simply reporting the news and events that happen.

Much has been said about the bias that exists in most any news organization. And while the bias is unquestionably present, it must be allowed that it is impossible for humans to divest themselves of all subjectivity when reacting to newsworthy events – even humans whose job it is to report said events. Everyone has an opinion of how to interpret an event, or what would be an ideal development, and there’s no getting around that fact of human nature.

Valid, and differing, points of view can be presented on what level of bias is permissible when reporting events. But if the recipients of the news are to get an accurate depiction of what actually is going on in the world, as opposed to what correspondents would like to see going on in the world, the temptation to manipulate events must be resisted much more than it is currently.

As things now stand, viewers, readers, and listeners are unable to be sure that a given report is an accurate depiction of what is going on in the world, given the fact that they are aware that the reporter may be trying to “make news” as Mr. Blitzer noted. Perhaps this is why outlets such as Fox News, that often present news analysis from clearly-stated ideologically opposing perspectives, have seen their fortunes rise in recent years. Maybe Americans are deciding that the best they can hope for is to hear both sides’ “spin” and decide which sounds more reasonable.

Is this an ideal solution? Certainly not, but it may be the best that Americans can hope for in the near future. “We report, you decide” may be a slogan that is derided by many in the mainstream media, but most Americans would still prefer that approach to news than the CNN/Blitzer approach that seems to say “We’ll decide for you.”