The Golden Age of Objectivity

 If the highest law of journalism is 'to the tell the Truth  and shame the devil'  then the  Golden Age of Objectivity was the 1950s.  The 1951 government film 'Duck and Cover' advised on what to do if the see the flash of a nuclear bomb.  Fear of Communism and the threat of atomic war moved us into the 'donut hole' of consensus.

Historian Daniel Hallin uses donuts as a metaphor for the news. (Hallin, 2010) The donut hole is the ‘sphere of consensus;’ unquestionable values and unchallengeable truths. The donut itself is ‘legitimate controversy.’ This is the literal ‘sweet spot’ where undecided issues can be debated and discussed. Outside the donut is the ‘sphere of deviance’ reserved for opinions outside the mainstream of society.

Objectivity pt. 1

Objectivity emerged as a selling point in American Journalism when the price of a newspaper dropped to a penny.  In 1833 The New York Sun slashed the price of their paper to multiply readership and increase advertising.  Profits soared.

Yet all around their was a grinding, dehumanizing poverty reflected in the eyes of these 'newsies' selling papers on city streets.  Before WWI people viewed the world as being cruel but rich with opportunity.  Horatio Alger novels told stories of how the humblest orphans could ascend into the middle class through hard work.

This view changed following the war.  As damaged soldiers returned home with stories and the hideous and meaningless death of millions of young men a deep cynicism sets in and 'Dadaism' is born.  Its basic philosophy:  everything is meaningless.

Hiroshima

On August 6, 1945, a revolutionary new weapon destroyed Hiroshima, a Japanese city of 300,000 inhabitants. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. America’s secret super-weapon was lauded for bringing about victory in the Pacific and ending World War II. President Truman’s official announcement included half-truths that shaped the government’s official narrative: “Sixteen hours ago, an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese army base.” In fact, the bomb was aimed at Hiroshima’s city center for maximum psychological effect; the army base on its outskirts escaped much damage.

Eighty years after the devastating atomic bombings that ushered in the nuclear age, Bombshell explores how the U.S. government manipulated the narrative about the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Through propaganda, censorship and the co-opting of the press, the government presented a benevolent picture of atomic power, minimizing the horrific human toll. Bombshell sheds light on the efforts of a group of intrepid reporters to let the world know the truth.

How did the Press Reported on the Atomic Bomb? 

Why is the bok Hiroshima still so important today?

Why was it so controversial then?

Read the book for yourself...

WAR! Ernie Pyle & GI Joe

Many journalists were 'embedded' with the troops in WWII.  The legendary Ernie Pyle from western Indiana wrote columns on their grinding ordeal and uncomplicated courage.  Armed only with a typewriter, Pyle personalized war reporting, creating a bridge between the everyday soldier, whom he dubbed GI Joe, and the American populace.

As a roving correspondent for the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, he earned wide acclaim for his accounts of ordinary people in rural America, and later, of ordinary American soldiers during World War II. His syndicated column ran in more than 300 newspapers nationwide.

At the time of his death he was among the best-known American war correspondents. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1944 for his spare, poignant accounts of "dogface" infantry soldiers from a first-person perspective. "No man in this war has so well told the story of the American fighting man as American fighting men wanted it told", wrote Harry Truman. "He deserves the gratitude of all his countrymen."

Who are the reporters who have followed in Ernie Pyle's footsteps?  What have they risked?

Is it worth it?

Listen to Jon Voigt read Ernie Pyle

How did John Hersey differ from Ernie Pyle?

Why is the book Hiroshima still so important today?

Why was it so controversial then?

Read the book for yourself...

The Charge of the Light Brigade

 

Half a league, half a league,

Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!

Charge for the guns!” he said.

Into the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

-BY ALFRED, LORD TENNYSON 

In 1854, London Times reporter William Howard Russel reports on the charge of the British Light Cavalry Brigade in Crimea. He writes of soldiers ill-fed, ill-led, and left on the field to die. Prince Albert is furious. Russell's reporting turns the public against the government, prompting history's first order of military censorship. Henceforth, any reporter who reports information that could be useful to the enemy will be expelled. Russell is hailed as the 'father of war reporting.'

Read both Tennyson's poem  and Russel's report for understanding and then answer these questions:

1) Compare and contrast the tone and emotion of Tennyson's poem to William Russel's war report.  How did each describe the soldiers?  What was their view of leadership/ command?  What was their message to the public?

2) What are some ways 19th-century readers might have reacted differently to a poem versus a newspaper report?

3) How does today’s media (TV, internet, social media) shape public opinion about wars?

4) Should war reporters try to stay neutral, or is it okay to take a moral stance? Explain your reasoning.

5) After studying both accounts, do you think the public should see the “heroic” side of war, the “tragic” side, or both? Why?

---

Believe It Or Not!

 

At its most extreme, bias will drive people away from sources they disagree with and push them to consume only media from outlets that confirm their existing worldviews. In the age of social media, this has become especially true. Because we often surround ourselves with like-minded people as our friends and acquaintances, our social media feeds will often reflect a shared bias. At its most extreme application, we create an echo chamber, or a situation where ideas and beliefs are amplified and reinforced through communication and repetition, around ourselves.

Do you believe me? Why/ not?

1) What is the main idea of the comic?

2) What is the backfire effect? Explain it in your own words.

3) Give one example from the comic of a belief that is easy to change 

4).Give one example of a belief that is difficult to change.

5) What happens when someone’s strongly held belief is challenged?

How does this new information make you feel? Angry? Sad? Happy? Glad? Why?

What is the 'backfire effect' and what can you do to counteract it?'

What can Helen Keller conspiracy teach us about the backfire effect?

How to Spot Bias in the Media and Fight It

(What is the real secret of Soylent Green?)

Bias is hard to avoid, but it can be really damaging - leading us to make poor choices without fairly weighing up the facts. 

As human beings, we all bring a point of view into the world, and that point of view colors how we learn about and interact with it. This is built up from the moment we are born and will continue to evolve until we die. With that in mind, we should always be aware that we cannot react to anything in a completely objective manner.

That same logic holds true for media. All news outlets are organizations and made up of people. This means that editors, reporters, commentators, and researchers who work in journalism bring their point of view to work with them every day, and it is borderline impossible for them to completely separate themselves from the stories they report. It is therefore logical to assume that even the hardest news will be colored, to a certain extent, by the person reporting it. At a microlevel, when looking at a story, this point of view can manifest itself in a variety of ways that we should be on the lookout for:

Value as fact: In softer news, the presenter might attempt to pass off their beliefs as fact. This is especially true of punditry and opinion sections (think Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, or Stephen Colbert) where the presenter is often attempting to confirm their own worldview and make that worldview more presentable to the consumer. If a worldview or set of values is stated, we should automatically be on the lookout for bias in how the story is presented.

Presentation of the facts: In hard news, it’s important to keep an eye on how the facts are presented. Were questions left unanswered? Was information omitted that could have been vital to building a clear picture of events?

Credibility and accuracy of sourcing: Did the story source a diverse array of credible viewpoints and make the effort to flesh out who or what they are and put the information gleaned from them in context? The less you notice this in a story, the more on guard you should be for bias.

Cherry-picking: How are sources represented in the story? Are they analyzed in depth or just at a glance?

Sensationalism: Does the language in the headline or body provoke an emotional response? If it does, it’s likely that you’re consuming something intentionally biased and seeking to elicit that reaction to further the agenda of its author.

Commentary: Does the story draw a specific conclusion? Do they tell you in the presentation of facts whether they judge a source to be credible or portray them in a positive or negative light? In general, we should be skeptical of any reporting that attempts to pass judgement on a source. It may be accurate, but further research will be needed on the part of the consumers to independently confirm this judgement for themselves.

Fighting BIAS can be even harder than detecting it, especially when we already have strong preconceived opinions... 

You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you!