Objectivity: A Troubled Past

I have a favor to ask – get up off your lazy butt, sit down and turn on the television to your favorite news channel. At any give point you’ll be inundated with flashy computer graphics swooping in from the corner of your screen to show you the importance of unbiased and objective reporting, conveniently administered through repetitive motions, simple words and colors.

“Fair and balanced.” “The place for politics.” “America’s news leader.”

These are the mantras under which our media conglomerates operate. However, when investigating something as mangled and lopsided as government affairs, is corporate news’ branded lubricant of objectivity what we really need to digest newsworthy events?

It’s no mystery that journalism has played a crucial part in America’s history. The journalist easily excels at fulfilling the first component of his duties – reporting news to the public. But even with the high value we place on objectivity, those words come with an influential twist.

For example, more than 50% of news coverage in 2003 on CBS, NBC, and FOX News painted the Iraq War as positive, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In the late 1880s, yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst rallied the public to support a US war against Spain. Even as early as 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Lt. Colonel Carrington of the Continental Army, “…were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Regardless, a recently overlooked position of journalism has been that of government watchdog – cautiously skeptical and consistently questioning. In a September 2003 USA Today interview, former ABC World News anchor Peter Jennings remarked on such a duty: “This role [journalism] is designed to question the behavior of government officials on behalf of the public.”

So, what stands in the journalist’s way from fulfilling the guardian role? The answer lies in our current definition of objectivity.

In a recent interview, Robert Jensen, an associate professor at the University’s School of Journalism, explained that there is a lot of confusion associated with objectivity. Armed with a Ph.D. in media ethics and law, Jensen said that objectivity includes a commitment to not fabricating information, approaching the world with an open mind and honestly presenting that information.

“However, that’s not what we have,” said Jensen.

Today’s objectivity, according to the Jensen, is “a cover for a set of practices tending to privilege the views of official sources that represent powerful institutions…rooted in economics – a cheap, easy and safe way to report.”

If journalists are committed to truth and accuracy in what they print and broadcast, they must also embrace the dwindling part of watchdog so they can fulfill their duties to, and on behalf of, the public. Instead, topical demand for an adulterated form of objectivity restricts the journalist, leading to reporter complacency, which finally results in our current situation of partisan hackery – political correctness for journalists.

Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, an organization that investigates propaganda and promotes media literacy, explained that reporter complacency is due to security. It’s safer for a journalist to simply present both sides and leave it at that.

“People are frustrated with media and feel that news reporting isn’t filling its role in society,” said Farsetta.

The disadvantage of representing both sides is that we lose the larger context in which events occur, a duty that falls within journalist’s role, according to Jensen, and a key requirement in holding those in power accountable.

“It’s the journalist’s responsibility to look at the big picture,” remarked Jensen. “Otherwise, you’re a stenographer, which is of no value.”

On a local level, when print media reported on the mandated tuition increases towards the end of the semester, journalists covered that event ‘objectively’ – who, what, when, where and why – allowing them to fulfill half of their responsibilities.

However, the university students dug deeper and looked to late June 2003, when tuition deregulation was passed under the guise of making higher education in Texas affordable to everyone, which is a false statement when presented with the fact that tuition has increased 93% over the past four years.

Which news organization held accountable those who were responsible for tuition deregulation? It was well within the scope of the journalist’s duty to ask university administrators why they were raising prices when tuition deregulation was supposed to keep costs down. And if it wasn’t keeping costs down, then why was it implemented?

On a national level, it means that when the US Congress votes to implement a federal identification system for every American under the Real ID Act, the journalist is well within his scope of authority to ask the members of Congress why they decided to infringe on privacy – a topic that may butt heads with the current administration but cannot be painted as a liberal or conservative bias. When the US Congress votes to deny habeas corpus under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, not in a time of rebellion or invasion, as stated in the Constitution, the journalist has a duty to ask why members of Congress suspended a constitutional right – again, neither a liberal nor a conservative topic.

When asked why he thought it was hard for politicians to answer a straight, simple question, Daily Show host Jon Stewart replied, during an October 2004 appearance on CNN’s Crossfire, “I don’t think it’s hard; I just think that nobody holds their feet to the fire to do it, so they don’t have to.”

The attempts at what is considered objectivity are nothing more than avoiding controversy and the equivalent of giving Republicans and Democrats equal airtime. While the false objectivity of covering, praising, and disparaging the two political parties equally barely fulfills the duty of news reporting, it distracts from the second duty of the journalist – holding public policymakers and politicians accountable.

But who am I to argue with both “the most trusted name in news” and “the most powerful name in news?”

Obamarama Hits Austin

Presidential candidate, Illinois senator and mainstream media darling Barack Obama entertained over 3,000 people at The Backyard in Austin on November 17. While turnout was nowhere near that of Senator Obama’s performance at Auditorium Shores last February, the crowd’s intensity and vigor remained.

Sen. Obama launched his speech into applause and cheers by reminding everyone that in next year’s presidential election, “the name ‘George W. Bush’ will not be on the ballot.”

He announced the end of Scooter Libby justice and Karl Rove politics, allowing for a revolutionary White House. By highlighting the negatives of wiretapping and Katrina inadequacies, Sen. Obama reaffirmed his distance from President Bush. He also differentiated himself from other candidates by committing to a new style of politics and campaign strategy.

“Telling people what we think they want to hear rather than what they need to hear just won’t do,” Obama challenged his Democratic contenders.

Unfortunately, as is the case with most politicians, no matter how new blood they are, Obama’s speech fell trap to resembling a political pep rally rather than talking about the very issues on which he claimed his rivals wouldn’t elaborate.

Key among debated domestic policies is health care.

“I’m tired of talking about the outrage of 47 million Americans without health care, and I want to start doing something about it,” Obama proclaimed. He continued by guaranteeing every American a health insurance plan comparable to those enjoyed by members of Congress. However, he failed to mention any specifics.

In a document titled Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America (available for viewing on his Web site, BarackObama.com), Obama highlights his strategy for universal health care and claims that his plan will “save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on medical expenditures.”

Obama’s plan includes subsidizing families who need health care through federal funds, requiring hospitals and providers to submit information to federal bureaucrats concerning their methods and practices and implementing a national health insurance exchange. Additionally, he would force insurers to charge premiums based on income level of customers rather than health needs and mandate employers who don’t cover their workers substantially to pay a portion of payroll to the national health program. Other intrusions include more federal control over public schools to decrease obesity and increase nutrition.

While the plan barely makes a dent in pockets of larger corporations, those most likely to suffer are the smaller business owners who cannot afford to provide a sizeable amount of health care to employees. Obama makes the argument that each business will be able to provide health insurance coverage because costs will decrease. However, Sen. Obama is relying on tax revenue and artificial subsidies to keep prices low.

While Obama continually states that Americans need to take responsibility for themselves, his plan contradicts his professing self-reliance by promoting an ‘Obama knows best’ mindset – or even worse, ‘government knows best.’ Such extensive federal oversight into privacy and market intervention goes well beyond the boundaries of government; of course, the current health care system isn’t exactly doing a great job of allowing the private sector to flex its capability either.

And, of course, as is the case with most politicians, Sen. Obama forgot to mention – both in his speech Saturday afternoon and in his health care plan – the cost of his universal health care. According to the campaign office, the Obama Plan ranges between $50-65 billion dollars per year. How will we pay for it? Sen. Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire for those individuals earning $250,000 or more.

The presidential hopeful’s approach is similar to many other universal health care plans that involve taking money from American citizens through taxes and having the government manage these additional revenues to pay the salaries of its bureaucrats first and health care second.

After evaluating and criticizing current tenets of the Democratic Party, Sen. Obama benevolently vowed to pay teachers higher salaries during his first term but did not explain where the money would come from.

Obama shifted quickly from education to the foreign policy and war powers and immediately differentiated himself from other major Democratic rivals: “I’m tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act and vote like George Bush Republicans.”

Commendable within his speech was Obama’s desire to restore habeas corpus, which was essentially suspended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – a bill that passed both houses of Congress in September 2006 and a bill for which Sen. Obama voted against.

Sen. Obama hardly spent any time on the Iraq occupation. He mentioned only that he would bring the troops home within 16 months. He did not elaborate on the costs involved and what the result of his Iraq plan would be.

Unfortunately for Obama, his support might have increased greatly had he explained his plan for getting out of Iraq. His Web site provides a detailed document similar to his health care plan, titled Barack Obama: Turning the Page in Iraq, which describes the shortcomings of current strategies in Iraq, such as the recent troop surge.

Additionally, Obama highlights that removing American troops is the best way to improve our national security and secure Iraqi independence, but he doesn’t stop there. In addition to halting US assistance to different sects, Obama outlines a constitutional convention headed by the UN, for Iraqi leaders “to develop a more sustainable balance between Baghdad’s central authority and provincial governments.”

And finally, Sen. Obama includes in his plan a troop surge to the long-forgotten Afghanistan, to correctly fight the Taliban and capture the man responsible for 9/11.

While his speech excited the crowd, Sen. Obama did not focus on the specifics concerning the two important topics of health care and the Iraq occupation. Instead, he told the audience what it wanted to hear – watered down political euphemisms with the gift of good intentions, leaving his revolutionary campaign strategy in the dust.

Global Gore-ming

On the evening of October 1, the Frank Erwin Center audience at The University of Texas showered former Vice President Al Gore with thunderous applause as everyone nostalgically reminisced at a brighter-looking time before today’s economic recessions, before the Iraq War and before 9/11. The charismatic public-private citizen served as a poster boy for a simpler time, when economic growth was fueled by dot com booms, in addition to the ever-prevalent artificial injections through the Federal Reserve.

He addressed the crowd with his trademark introduction: “I used to the be next President of the United States.”

Gore then proceeded to burst the crowd’s bubble with his truth – inconveniently, I might add.

The purpose of this column is not to debate the merits of the global warming argument, nor those of the skeptics. Rather, I will address the flawed philosophy behind the requested solutions to our “planetary emergency.”

Throughout our adolescence, we are shown to respect nature through the musings of benevolent teachers and adults. We don’t understand the hypocritical lifestyles (i.e. Al Gore’s power-hungry mansion vs. George Bush’s eco-friendly ranch), nor do we comprehend the questionability of the methods through which we are taught: enviro-conscious yet gas-guzzling hippies and books printed on paper warning us about the dangers of rainforest depletion.

Things are never as they seem, as is the case with the environmentalist’s solution to global warming. In Gore’s presentation and in society today, people are growing more conscientious about their ‘carbon footprint’ and the overall impact they have on the environment. Because the flush of a toilet in Chile can cause a hurricane in Japan, it is important to understand how interdependent global civilizations are.

However, looking to the federal government is seldom the answer.

Restrictive and destructive legislation that promotes emissions caps do not benefit anyone. Essentially, these laws do redistribute wealth through the carbon credit system. If a company exceeds its carbon emissions cap for a certain year, it can purchase credits from other companies, the government or NGO’s. This may not be a problem for large corporations, but this bureaucratic tool only adds obstacles in the way of small businesses and start-ups. The entire concept of a forced carbon credit system, as is mandated in the Kyoto Protocol, is disingenuous in that if you have money, can you pollute as much as you want.

There must be some manipulation of the environment to survive and produce; you cannot create wealth from nothing. Nevertheless, if the goal of the global warming movement is to cut emissions, many companies are following suit without legislation. For example, Starbucks, McDonalds and Limited Brands are in the process of developing or already have a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) division. Regardless of the impending crisis we are constantly reminded of, it is profitable to be committed to CSR. Customers pay higher prices for Fair Trade, locally grown and/or environmentally friendly products – and this is all accomplished without the ‘help’ of the federal government.

Global warming will not be solved through the red-taped hand of the government; rather, the Invisible Hand will do a much better job. For example, French inventor Guy Negre – and his company Moteur Developpment International – has been researching Compressed Air Technology (CAT), and one day, hopes to mass-produce cars that run solely on compressed air. If successful, this invention would do much more to reduce pollution than any bureaucrat in the federal government ever could – no matter how engulfed in red tape he is.

It may help to think about the role of the federal government; it is there to protect any one individual or group from inflicting force on another individual or group. Capping emissions doesn’t fall into that category (not without some serious emotionally baseless rhetoric). We embrace the idea of a benevolent government, ready to take on the challenges of the world, and we forget that it’s not the government that gets us through challenges – it’s us.

It will be difficult, but we need to get rid of the notion that anytime something bad or unexpected happens, we need to make a new law.