Politics of trust
I have noticed a bizarre trend in media discourse reflecting a fundamental distrust of ‘politics.’ This is evident in two places, the reporting of politics, and the reporting on how politics gets talked about.
The first, the reporting of politics developed as a demand to maintain ‘objectivity’ in reporting. I don’t quite grasp the nuances of its origins, but neutrality and objectivity have gained enormous importance in how people evaluate news reporting. Various accusations of a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ bias coming from all manner of people demonstrates this point readily. The spirit of individualism emerges along the fringes of this discussion as a rejection of media sources’ supposed attempts at deception and manipulation of an otherwise rational and capable populace. It also reflects a vague strain of minority rights protection rhetoric, with emphasis on equal weight being given to both sides of an issue, no matter the level of support (see reporting on global warming for an example) The response from media sources is an attempt to show ‘both sides’ of a debate. This begins with a presumption that no issue has one side or an immediately obvious solution. Equal representation as a principle then demands each get a ‘fair share’ of the possible air time/print space.
The second part- articles about how people talk about politics. These are articles that report on political strategy either major party uses, or op-ed pieces with recommendations on how to develop political strategy. These often adopt an abstracted or even diminutive voice in their writing- hinting at an impression that they write and think above and beyond the actual politics being discussed. They pretend that politics happens somewhere other than the pages of newspapers or news reporting; somewhere a bit less enlightened and aware. And so, articles describing the slim chances of a Democratic takeover in November ’06 because of their supposed lack of a ‘positive message’ in their campaigning can still make claims of neutrality or even Democratic bias. This trend deals with issues written about here before, such as the presumption of legislative politics as the exclusive/authentic political space. This creates the impression that political parties/politicians define messages and the reception of those messages in a relative vacuum.
Both of these things signify newsmedia (probably more newspapers and the internet as much as anywhere else) as an (ideally) democratic/deliberative space. They assume a status ‘prior’ or formative to politics that assigns unique burdens to how reporting gets done. Ultimately, both of these elements assume all political issues have indeterminate solutions that will be decided by and for the people in the reading public. News has a purpose as deliberation in an indecisive world, as the underpinning and observer to politics, which on some level is seen as dirty or inappropriate to discuss.
Duncan
The first, the reporting of politics developed as a demand to maintain ‘objectivity’ in reporting. I don’t quite grasp the nuances of its origins, but neutrality and objectivity have gained enormous importance in how people evaluate news reporting. Various accusations of a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ bias coming from all manner of people demonstrates this point readily. The spirit of individualism emerges along the fringes of this discussion as a rejection of media sources’ supposed attempts at deception and manipulation of an otherwise rational and capable populace. It also reflects a vague strain of minority rights protection rhetoric, with emphasis on equal weight being given to both sides of an issue, no matter the level of support (see reporting on global warming for an example) The response from media sources is an attempt to show ‘both sides’ of a debate. This begins with a presumption that no issue has one side or an immediately obvious solution. Equal representation as a principle then demands each get a ‘fair share’ of the possible air time/print space.
The second part- articles about how people talk about politics. These are articles that report on political strategy either major party uses, or op-ed pieces with recommendations on how to develop political strategy. These often adopt an abstracted or even diminutive voice in their writing- hinting at an impression that they write and think above and beyond the actual politics being discussed. They pretend that politics happens somewhere other than the pages of newspapers or news reporting; somewhere a bit less enlightened and aware. And so, articles describing the slim chances of a Democratic takeover in November ’06 because of their supposed lack of a ‘positive message’ in their campaigning can still make claims of neutrality or even Democratic bias. This trend deals with issues written about here before, such as the presumption of legislative politics as the exclusive/authentic political space. This creates the impression that political parties/politicians define messages and the reception of those messages in a relative vacuum.
Both of these things signify newsmedia (probably more newspapers and the internet as much as anywhere else) as an (ideally) democratic/deliberative space. They assume a status ‘prior’ or formative to politics that assigns unique burdens to how reporting gets done. Ultimately, both of these elements assume all political issues have indeterminate solutions that will be decided by and for the people in the reading public. News has a purpose as deliberation in an indecisive world, as the underpinning and observer to politics, which on some level is seen as dirty or inappropriate to discuss.
Duncan
posted by Duncan at 12:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home