Do you trust the news media?

***

Catherine Baab-Muguira

Last year, I had 12 articles run in national publications. From this work, I earned $2,000 after taxes. There’s an old joke about how to make a small fortune in the media business — start with a large one. Few people ever make much money as journalists, much less as essayists.

For a relatively low-paying field, it’s hard to get into. It took me 12 years of pitching ideas to editors to “break in” in the exceedingly minor way that I have. And I still have a day job.

Some people would have you believe that those who work in media are lazy millionaires. That’s the best joke I’ve heard about this business yet. Unfortunately, it’s also a cynical attempt to manipulate you and me both. Let me explain.

Newspapers are struggling in the digital era. The competition to break stories and provide wide coverage is intense. Even when publications win a large audience, web traffic doesn’t equal riches. Google and Facebook capture most of the ad dollars.

Yet journalists still bring us important stories. In 2015, John Carreyrou of The Wall Street Journal uncovered the truth about the multi-billion-dollar medical startup Theranos (which was misleading investors and patients). The company’s lawyers swept into the Journal’s office, trying to kill the story. But David fought Goliath and won, and the public benefited.

Regional papers perform another valuable service. Recently, my father-in-law showed me the newspaper clippings his mother had saved until her death, including a small notice from when he was made a captain in the Army. What I felt, when I touched the paper, was a mother’s pride in her son. She’d died but it had survived.

For several decades, political operatives have sought to undermine public trust in the media. Alan Pell Crawford’s “Thunder on the Right” offers a detailed history. Sometimes, when I hear people speak of media bias, it’s as if they’re saying to me “15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on your car insurance.” They’re repeating a bit of marketing, likely without knowing it.

I don’t say that media bias does not exist. I say it’s overstated — often by people who’d like to sell you something. Stoking rage against supposed “elites” is a time-honored strategy. (Distinguished fans include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.)

Don’t forget to look at the person pointing the finger. Ask yourself: What are they trying to deflect attention from?

Catherine Baab-Muguira is an advertising copywriter and free-lance writer who lives in Richmond.

***

Bill Bolling

We live in a very skeptical society. Nowhere is this skepticism more prevalent than it is with today’s news sources. There was a day when Americans trusted the media to be fair reporters of what was going on in our world, but no longer. We are living in a time when there is open conflict between public officials and the media, and when anything that makes us uncomfortable is immediately dismissed as “fake news.”

I spent 22 years in public office, and I have extensive experience interacting with the media. I can tell you without exception that the media always treated me fairly, and usually reported accurately the issues that I was involved with. And when I did take exception to their reporting it was not because I felt they had been purposely unfair or inaccurate. It was usually because they simply failed to understand, or I had failed to adequately explain, the issues we were discussing.

So what has driven this pervasive attitude that the media cannot be trusted? While there are many factors that could be discussed, I would highlight four.

First, reporters are people, too. They have opinions and biases on issues, just like we all do. And sometimes, no matter how hard they may try to be impartial reporters of the facts, these opinions and biases show through. But this doesn’t mean that they are trying to deceive us. It only means they are human.

Second, some of today’s so-called news sources are really nothing more than entertainment venues. While these sources can play a helpful role in communicating current events and educating the public, we need to take them for what they are. Much of what they do is not news, it’s entertainment. They have a built-in bias and they try to persuade their viewers or listeners to their point of view. They are not news sources, they are opinion sources, and there is a huge difference between the two.

Third, many people do not get their news form reputable sources. They get their news from blogs and other sources that are often not reliable or factual. It is amazing how some of these sources can distort the news and create downright falsehoods to try to influence public opinion. These sources should be avoided at all cost. They are the epitome of “fake news.”

Finally, there have unquestionably been times when reputable news sources have clearly overstepped their bounds. When they do so, it tends to cast a negative shadow on all news organizations, and that is unfortunate, because most of them work hard to do a good job.

Ultimately, I believe that most reputable news sources do a good job reporting the news, and they do that as objectively as is humanly possible. But as consumers, we need to be able to discern the difference between news and opinion, and between journalism and entertainment.

Bill Bolling lives in Hanover and served as lieutenant governor of Virginia from 2006 to 2014.

***

Bill Farrar

Let’s get this out of the way: “Fake news” is free speech.

The ACLU of Virginia would defend the right of anyone to publish it, as it also does the right to expression of satirists, artists of all stripes, political extremists, pornographers, and serious journalists.

That means, with regard to the First Amendment, buyer beware rules the day. In our current state of national devolution, we might crudely identify three types of buyers with regard to consumption of news and information.

There are those who seem able to discern between various sources, determine which are credible, and then analyze the information they obtain against their pre-existing knowledge, values, attitudes, beliefs, and biases.

There are those who are understandably confused. “Fake news” and the new presidential administration’s embrace of “alternate facts” easily can exhaust one’s practical ability to get to the truth.

Then there are those who are beyond active denial. They accept lies that correspond to their opinions regardless of provable information to the contrary. That’s absurd.

It is hard to stay well-informed. It takes time and a strong emotional and intellectual constitution to keep up with and understand the unprecedented, whiplash events of this time in history. It is also, however, necessary. No one has the luxury of looking away.

So, what media can you trust? You can and should trust real journalists who abide by the Society of Professional Journalists’ (SPJ) Code of Ethics. The cornerstones of the SPJ code are pursuit of truth, minimizing harm as a result of journalists’ actions, independence, and transparency and accountability.

That all sounds pretty good. The difficulty is membership in SPJ and adherence to its code are entirely voluntary. There is no tie between established ethics and any form of certification or licensure as there is for, say, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and engineers, all of which have licensure and a toothy code of ethics. Break it and you could lose your right to practice.

Since licensing journalists would be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, anyone with a Blogspot account and a $4 domain name is free to call themselves one. It’s up to you, the buyer, to beware of shady peddlers of misinformation and ask your favorite media outlets what ethical standards they conform to. If they come up blank, get your information elsewhere.

Bill Farrar is director of public policy & communications for the ACLU of Virginia.

***

Cordel Faulk

Do I trust the news media? Should we, as Americans, trust the news media?

The weekend Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as president, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd asked the new counselor to the president, Kellyanne Conway, why the White House press secretary had made statements that were demonstrably untrue to the media about the size of the crowd at Trump’s swearing-in. Her reply: “You’re saying it’s a falsehood and Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that.”

Who cares about the size of the inaugural crowd? What the citizens of this country should pay attention to: A spokesperson for the American president smiled as she tried to redefine lies to the public — from an official of the American government — as facts.

If you look up the word “media,” you’ll notice it’s the plural form of the word. The media is not a singular institution. Do I trust all of the parts of the news media? No. There are entire news stations on cable that spread misinformation on the hour, solely in the name of grabbing as many viewers as possible. I don’t trust them, and it escapes me why anyone does.

But in a world where a new administration’s first act is gleefully to lie to my face as an American citizen, it’s in my best interest to find media outlets I can trust. I’d better. I mean media outlets who see it as their job to provide me with the facts I need to make judgments that allow me to fulfill my role as a responsible American citizen. They exist, and there are a lot of them. It’s my role to seek an array of them, and to arm myself.

The internet is a wonderful medium, but one of its unintended consequences is that it has allowed society to fragment into echo chambers. Many people don’t ever have their beliefs challenged. When said folks accidentally run into information that does not fit squarely with what they have theorized, they brand any contrary information as trash. That’s the case even when these people are presented with objective facts supported by black-and-white integers. The American Experiment will fail if that continues to be the case.

Facts are facts — and that is the case whether they support my opinions or not.

As a citizen, it is my job to find those portions of the media dedicated to presenting me with objective American integers so I can hold governmental actors accountable. If we can’t or don’t do that, our nation will have entered a very dark age for civil society — which in turn will be a golden age for political corruption.

Cordel Faulk is a former editor of The Times-Dispatch Commentary section.

***

A. Barton Hinkle

Trust the media? Yes — and no.

The establishment media usually do a solid job telling the big stories. They are scrupulous about getting the details right. If CNN reports that the EPA will force automakers to raise average fuel economy by 20 mpg, you can take that to the bank. If the Boston Globe quotes the city’s mayor, you can trust the quotation’s accuracy. If you read an obituary in the local paper, you can bet the rent that the name is spelled right. You’re never going to see a reputable news organization report the fake-news story that the pope just endorsed Donald Trump.

Investigative reporting deserves a more jaundiced eye. Sometimes it is stellar — e.g., Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter Frank Green’s pieces on Keith Allen Harward, which led to the innocent man’s release after decades in prison. Or The Washington Post’s “Top Secret America” series exploring the world of domestic surveillance. But sometimes it is so faulty it has to be retracted. There are many examples, from a 1992 NBC “Dateline” segment on GM trucks to Rolling Stone’s 2014 story on a rape at U.Va.

The biggest problem with media coverage, though, is not with the stories that get reported but the ones that don’t.

It’s no secret that most news organizations tend to lean left. Hence, they instinctively view some institutions (such as corporations) as the bad guys, and other institutions (such as government regulatory agencies) as the good guys. So you see a lot of reporting like The New York Times’ “Toxic Waters” series or the AP’s “Pharmwater” series — full of dark warnings about the perils of too little government regulation. Do you ever see an investigative series suggesting there might be too much regulation of something — or even acknowledging the theoretical possibility?

I once asked the AP’s Washington bureau chief just that. The best she could come up with was an exposé on how the New York Police Department had been spying on Muslims. Huh? That series concerned civil liberties, not regulation.

Even in the realm of civil liberties, you sometimes see a marked difference in tone. Mainstream news organizations often refer to the “gun lobby,” but almost never to the “abortion lobby,” despite their many similarities. That’s because the word “lobby” carries sinister overtones. Most of the media consider abortion rights good and gun rights bad.

This doesn’t make reporters and editors malevolent. They’re merely fallible — just like the rest of us.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist and the deputy editor of the Editorial Pages for the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

***

Osita Iroegbu

If it bleeds it leads.

Journalism students are often exposed to the idea that the media exploit the human mind’s tendency to latch on to negative emotions, attitudes and events.

Research shows that negative and positive information is handled in different areas of the brain and that negative sentiments and experiences may undergo a deeper level of information processing.

Thus, when we consume news filled with violence, crime or some angle of negativity, we are more likely to allot more of our cognitive resources to contemplating these stories in greater detail than the more positive stories we consume.

Part of this is conditioning. Over time, our brains become wired in a way that forces it to process information according to the perspectives and ideologies that have been most salient within our environments.

And the media know this.

Think about it: The first half of many local TV news broadcasts is typically about shootings, fires, robberies, natural disasters, conflict and death. The front page, upper fold of newspapers reflects this as well. National news doesn’t deviate much from this pattern either.

Consequently, a domino effect ensues: The greater the prevalence of negativity in news media, the more the human mind tunes in, leading to boosted media ratings, sales, online clicks and even advertisements. It also undoubtedly leads to an increasingly paranoid and fearful public.

While media organizations are privy to this stimulus-response dynamic, so are politicians and other individuals in seats of power whose mission is to maintain control by framing messages and rhetoric in ways that help fulfill their agendas.

As such, politicians and media become complicit in shaping public perceptions around what should be considered good and bad.

It’s no wonder the media have historically portrayed violence and crime as an urban, Black and Latino issue. Poverty is depicted as an individual problem rather than a systemic one. Then there’s the sensational framing of whose religion is most associated with terrorism and who is worthy of entering our borders.

Instead of challenging the media, we unfortunately start to distrust our domestic and global neighbors and become comfortable with the negative and oftentimes false narratives and “alternative facts” being fed to us by media outlets and politicians with dangerous agendas.

The media must reclaim its role as the Fourth Estate, serving as a government watchdog — not lapdog — while afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.

But we the people must also recondition our minds in ways that reflect the true nature of our core as good, positive and spiritual beings. We must demand better of the media, elected officials and ourselves.

Osita Iroegbu is an educator, community advocate and communications professional. She is a former reporter at The Times-Dispatch and is currently a Ph.D. student at Virginia Commonwealth University.

***

Craig Johnson

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The six clauses in our First Amendment are really three sets of two. The first two cover religion and faith. The next two cover individual speech and corporate or institutional speech, including media. The last two cover things citizens may want to do when informed by the first four clauses on faith and speech; namely, to assemble with whomever, and for whatever, they please; and to petition their government.

That’s what it’s about. Getting people to assemble — to “engineer” their assembling and their consent to be governed. Whether as Republicans, Democrats or Constitutionalists; Protestants, Catholics or Jews; free marketers, socialists or crony capitalists — it requires speech. Both individual and institutional. It’s precisely this speech that is used in all our power centers that shape culture — and has the ability to move men’s hearts.

So, when we ask the question, “Do you trust the media?” we’re really inquiring about fallible humans, and powerful groups of humans, with tremendous powers of influence, and whether they discharge that power faithfully to the true calling of journalism, or whether they’re pretending.

Some power centers have people and leaders who’re sincerely civic-minded. They truly want to “spread the gospel,” or “insure domestic tranquility,” or report “all the news that’s fit to print.” Some only want personal power, glory, or profit.

Some really are only advocates for powerful interests — the most powerful of which is creating bigger and more powerful governmental control of our lives. They pretend to want to “paint a portrait of society” by accurately reflecting the human condition and reporting events truthfully.

Media critics have long claimed political hacks hide in journalism. Many say both sides do it. While partially true, journalists routinely self-report as being 90 percent Democrat. We just witnessed most media morph from lapdog for Obama and Clinton, to attack dog on Trump. These same media institutions used to call Stalin “Uncle Joe,” and let Obama get away with ridiculing Romney for calling Russia “our number one geopolitical foe,” after Obama had been caught on a hot mic telling Rusian President Medvedev that he’d “have more flexibility” after his 2012 re-election. After the Trump victory, most institutional journalists were falsely crying, “Russia hacked the election.”

Edmund Burke described journalists as the “Fourth Estate,” checking the powerful. The advent of mass media and big money got them bought and institutionalized. Fewer voices were allowed, as “engineering consent” for more government control — and less individual liberty — became primary.

What about the shut-out voices? The explosion of internet-driven media and talk-radio programs like mine has given new journalists the power to be called the “Fifth Estate.” Not only watching the powerful, but also watching the watchers, with many more voices.

Like most American institutions, the Fourth Estate of institutional journalism is now stale and sickened, with many segments no longer worthy of trust. I have confidence, however, that as the Fifth Estate of new media matures and grows, the increased competition in the marketplace of ideas will bring correction and healing — as new ideas usually do.

Craig Johnson is a news and political analyst, commentator, and radio talk-show host of The REALLY, Real, Deal with Brother Craig the Hatchet Man, on Virginia’s 820AM WNTW.

***

Al Schalow

My first thought, when asked, “Do you trust today’s media?” was curiosity as to how trusting media became an issue. Secondly, who bears responsibility for keeping, or breaking, such trust?

Freedom of speech is perhaps the greatest gift a society has ever bestowed upon itself. Media is the vehicle used to deliver our free speech. We call it news — and further break it down into good and bad news.

Media has evolved. Centuries ago, word of mouth sufficed. Along came the pulpit, soapbox, print, radio, television — and now, magical wireless electronic media. We now have instantaneous local, state, national, and worldwide reporting. Weather reports are highly accurate; human interest stories are inspirational. Editorials, letters to the editor, and opinion columns provide a public forum to debate, educate, and spotlight political and social accountability. Those things are among the good news.

The bad news is that freedom of expression is not limited to altruistic endeavors. That is the price we pay for many of our freedoms. Media competition for advertisers and subscribers is fierce. Public trust is diminished when media criticize one another — deserved or not.

Political dirty tricks and fake news stories are many times exposed only after damage is done. With relatively few restrictions placed upon written and verbal expression, many would agree that yesterday’s censorship has been largely replaced by today’s anything-goes relativism. I suspect public tolerance of relativism has encouraged the rise of activist agenda-driven media.

If public lack of trust of today’s media is a problem, what can be done to alleviate it? I offer several suggestions: Readers, listeners, and viewers should inform media executives of their likes and dislikes. Other options are available if those in charge fail to respond. Editors should insist upon balanced, accurate and objective reporting. Who, what, when, where, and why questions — and no personal opinions — have long served as a good journalistic reporting template.

It is reassuring to note that much of media misbehavior is self-cleansing. Misdeeds of Dan Rather and Brian Williams were brought to light by investigative reporting. Public trust in media is restored by such reporting.

I believe, if we honestly search deeply, we the people are a mirror image of today’s media. We only get out of it what we both put into it. That makes the answer to my lead question easier: We and the media share joint responsibility for keeping or breaking trust.

I hope to see you at the Times-Dispatch sponsored “Do you trust the media?” forum on Feb. 9. This presents an excellent opportunity to freely discuss ways to strengthen our bonds of trust.

Al Schalow is a retired pharmacist and frequent contributor to the RTD’s Your 2 Cents column. He lives in Midlothian.

***

If you’d like to respond to our essayists, please contact RTD Commentary Editor Bob Rayner at brayner@timedispatch.com. And don’t forget our Public Square on trust and the news media, from noon to 1:30 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 9, 300 East Franklin Street in downtown Richmond.