51吃瓜

With the decay of codes of听media ethics we听need听to be smarter than ever when choosing information we听are willing to trust.

Donald Trump鈥檚 no-holds-barred electoral campaign, punctuated by听pyrotechnic rally performances, used the media to generate waves of shock, ridicule and admiration through the United States and the world鈥攁nd won him America鈥檚 presidency. These tactics鈥攁nd the resulting counterattacks鈥攋ammed new information silos into the internet and helped divide the nation鈥檚 political constituencies. They also threatened the media鈥檚 codes of ethics, which specify moral values and standards of behavior that should be observed in the practice of professional journalism.

Soon after results were received for the 2016 US general election, Will Rahn of CBS News Digital composed an excellent听听that could be classified as a sort of听mea culpa about the Trump election victory and the quality of the campaign coverage by newspapers, television and radio. He starts:

鈥淭he mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.听It shouldn鈥檛 come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump鈥檚 victory. More than that and more importantly,听, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on. This is all symptomatic of modern journalism鈥檚 great moral and intellectual failing:听. Had Hillary Clinton won, there鈥檚 be a winking 鈥榳e did it鈥� feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.鈥�

Rahn鈥檚 opinions struck a chord with many journalists, and they may have been stung by his reference to the 鈥渦nbearable smugness,鈥� or air of superiority, assumed by leading American media. And most would have agreed with his closing remark that 鈥淲e have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There鈥檚 a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it鈥檚 not worth what we are losing in the process.鈥�

The Fourth Estate

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ)听prizes its听detailed听听and in the day, armed with this code, members could crow about journalism鈥檚 claim to represent the Fourth Estate. This 鈥渆state鈥� came to be believed more or less as fact after, in 1787, Thomas Carlyle told the English parliament that its reporters鈥� gallery was a 鈥淔ourth Estate more important鈥� than the other three estates鈥攖he church, the nobility and the commoners, or ordinary folk. Times have changed.

The preamble to the听 states that听鈥�public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.鈥澨齌oday听those听words seem听almost utopian in听their听reach. Most publishers who wish to be considered serious news sources do pay lip service to the code.

But, like everyone, else they must also please their patrons. Importantly, they must also compete with social media鈥攖hat powerful online concoction of opinion, gossip, all manner of printed-word specialties from dictionaries to bomb-making听advice, and the online personas of existing or听formerly-published newspapers and magazines.

Newspapers feel the need to offer readers more excitement in smaller packages in order to compete better, and some editors and publishers must look with secret envy at the adrenaline style and story picks of Breitbart’s听听edition, if not those of the 90-year-old news-stand听听celebrity gossip sheet.听鈥淭he internet has loosened our collective grasp on the truth,鈥� sighed听The New York Times听. 鈥淪ocial media has become an increasingly powerful cultural and political force, to the point that its effects are now beginning to alter the course of global events.鈥�

Newspaper readership has plummeted in the past decade and a half, public trust in what the papers say听crawls听the bottom of the charts along with the politicians, and habitual readers are mostly aged over 50. Television news is followed by a goodly percentage of the population. But the internet, easy to read and increasingly tailored to the reader鈥檚 own tastes, takes the cake鈥�62% of US adults get听.

Playing to the Audience

Donald Trump would not have won the presidency without the skillful use of the internet and the other media. His name recognition, his angry but detail-short remarks about what needs fixing in America, and his brand of implicit in-your-face self-importance gained ground every time the mainstream听media听called him out for his appalling references to women, immigrants and minorities.

听SPJ president Lynn Walsh recently reminded her membership that 鈥渏ournalists and news organizations need to continue听, informing the public about their communities, our nation and the world. Americans鈥攔egardless of political allegiance鈥攏eed to engage and invest in responsible and ethical reporting in order for it to thrive.鈥�

Such talk means little to Trump’s chief White House strategist听Steve Bannon, who doubles as media guru for the US nationalist cause. 鈥淭he media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what鈥檚 wrong with this country,鈥� he told Michael Wolff of 听in an exclusive Trump Tower interview. 鈥淚t鈥檚 just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f鈥攊ng idea what鈥檚 going on. If听The New York Times听didn鈥檛 exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern.听The Huffington Post听and everything else is predicated on听The New York Times. It鈥檚 a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information鈥� and her confidence. That was our opening.鈥�

51吃瓜 provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

There鈥檚 truth in Bannon鈥檚 comment, for the听Times听is closely followed by other editors and journalists who expect to benefit from gaining knowledge of the media giant鈥檚 news strategies. And the 鈥渃losed circle鈥� idea is strengthened by the increased reliance of financially pressed old-time media on Associated Press, Reuters, and other wire-service (and press-release) information to fill their news columns.

By contrast, Trump and Bannon chose their own messages, for people who preferred information from outside the circle. Working at the grass-roots level they identified the core needs and attitudes of people of various political areas听and crafted resolutions听that would be mentioned听in company with听more generalized nationalist storylines for speeches and printed matter that would be offered to appropriate audiences.

This creative no-holds-barred campaign, topped by听Trump鈥檚 cross-country performances, attracted waves of shock, derision, and admiration 鈥� and won the election. Unfortunately these tactics also created new information silos within the social media and helped to divide the nation further, but that is another story. In his emollient post-election 2016听, Trump urged Americans to 鈥渂egin to heal our divisions and move forward as one country.鈥�

Demi-Journalism

Alas, Lynn Walsh was preaching her ethical sermon to a choir that consists mostly of newspaper, radio and television-news writers, who know something about journalistic ethics. Few, if any, of her words would convey special meaning to the social media contributors, contract and PR writers, general mischief-makers, and propagandists who use internet media as tools for the support of retail and medical goods, a vast array of services, political causes and political hopefuls.

Gung-ho demi-journalists听also are in a good position to threaten codes of ethics, which lay down the moral values and standards of behavior to be observed by professional peers, including mass-media writers. Some wonder whether 鈥渂ad behavior,鈥� as represented by Trump in his campaign persona or the scaremongers e-zines, will continue its increase. And if bad behavor somehow becomes an accepted听style, are these ethical guardians of the printed word doomed to become shredder fodder?

Trade journalists and the SPJ faithful miss the days when editors would wave a fairly innocuous piece of copy at them and ask, 鈥淒id you fact-check this? What鈥檚 your source?鈥� or, 鈥淚f you want to write about your personal prejudices, save it for the editorial page.鈥�

They鈥檙e right to be fondly nostalgic, but those days have just about vanished. This means that unless readers are content with being blithely and blindly trustful they must be on the alert. Should they rely on social media for keys on the hot news they need and enjoy, and if so, which ones? Which website, blog or e-zine are they to believe? Which TV channel provides the best news coverage? Which newspaper is most balanced in its coverage of politics, finance, law and order, sports, international affairs and the rest?

Ordinary citizens need to keep听abreast of local, national and international news, for this is a vital part of the information needed to formulate opinions and make them known, and to defend their rights. All citizens of democratic societies should make themselves aware of the currents and eddies of a rapidly changing world.

But with the decay of codes of听media ethics they need听to be smarter than ever when choosing information that they are willing to trust. Otherwise, someone else will make that decision. This is happening already, with internet algorithms that 鈥渓earn鈥� individual lifestyle preferences and social media choices, and听provide information to match.

Maintaining personal independence means that people must听consider who is producing or sponsoring the information they receive, the writer’s reliability, and perhaps even the type of world the information’s originator would like to see take shape. As President John F. Kennedy advised in 1958,听鈥�Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.鈥�

*[A version of this article was featured on Nigel Hey鈥檚听.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.

Photo Credit:听