Vol. 4 No. 1 (May 2005)
Uncommon Denominator
The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org
"Righteousness,
n. A sturdy virtue that was once found among
the Pantidoodles
inhabiting the lower part of the
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's
Dictionary
CONTENTS
Talking
Points: Journalism's throes
Wit and Wisdom: The Organic Rebellion
Check It Out: The Skeptic's Dictionary
Poll-Watch: On political cleavages
Quoted! Tom Coburn on breast implants
Featured Article: "Deliver Us From Wal-Mart?"
Happenings: Monthly round-up
Endorsements: Mike Honda
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a
contributor
TALKING POINTS
It's probably no exaggeration to say that the
mainstream American media, as an institution, are in crisis. Between
falling revenues (from both subscriptions and advertising) and falling public
confidence (a recent Harris Poll found that only 12 percent of the public have
a high degree of trust in the media) the newspapers and television news
programs that once largely shaped the knowledge that Americans brought to their
daily lives and political positions now have to scrape for every reader and
every dollar, and many of them are not succeeding.
On balance, this is not a good thing, but there are still positive aspects to
it, and hopeful opportunities involved. To boil it down, the traditional
American news business faces four serious and interconnected threats:
* The first is the rise
of alternative sources of information, principally the Internet and its
array of independent bloggers, e-zines, newsletters,
and the like -- all of which are highly maneuverable, and therefore capable of
targeting specific audiences and siphoning off readers from the mainstream
outlets.
* The second threat is the relentless drumbeat of anti-journalistic
criticism that the political Right has kept up ever since
* The third truns deeper: That is the increasingly
skeptical, even jaundiced, attitude of modern Americans toward the usual
figures and institutions of cultural authority, and toward the reliability of
knowledge itself. For all the hostility aimed at the "postmodern"
mindset, with its supposed "moral relativism" and lack of conviction,
its basic vision of the contingency of truth and the inadequacy of
representation is one that many people bring to their encounter with news,
whether they realize it or not.
* Finally, journalism suffers from the control exercised over the mainstream
media by major corporations that, when the chips are down, will tend to put
profit before journalistic integrity. This has limited the coverage of topics
that might be uncomfortable for corporate sponsors and compromised the
financial commitments necessary for the pursuit and presentation of difficult
or complicated stories.
These
four factors reinforce each other: as the quality of news reporting
deteriorates, the public trusts the mainstream media less, alternative sources
become more attractive, establishment journalism become more vulnerable to
conservative attacks, and media owners and publishers seek then to appease the
accusers with less balanced programming.
There's something salutary here, however, and that's the fact that readers
have become more assertive and questioning about the information they
receive (or gather), and that they are able to get that information from a
greater diversity of sources (despite the agglomerating tendencies of corporate
news organizations). Yet with the sheer quantity of available information, and
the deliberate undermining of professional journalism by conservatives, the
question of how to evaluate sources of information has become ever more
pressing and ever more vexed. Anybody with access to a computer now
inhabits (if they want to) an absolute wilderness of facts, ideas,
perspectives, stories, claims, and counter-claims. On what basis should we
ground our evaluation of what we read or hear? Is the capacity for
misinformation (or disinformation) heightened or diminished by a wider array of
news sources? By what standards do we compare differing representations of the
world in which we live?
From one perspective, it's a positive development that people have become more
skeptical about journalistic objectivity. That skepticism recognizes a whole
host of factors that mediate what we receive as news -- factors ranging from
corporate influence to government spin to editorial mandates to the human
limitations of individual reporters. The problem, or the risk, is that this
skepticism can become debilitating or nihilistic -- that people will end up
seeing everything as equally truthful or equally untruthful, or that in the
The body blows to the mainstream news business have been coming hard and fast,
and they have seriously undermined the public's trust in the very notion of
journalistic integrity. The current brouhaha about Newsweek's retracted story
of Koran desecration at
As news organizations struggle to survive in an adrenalized
and hyper-competitive business environment, and in a more cynical political
culture, they risk both self-inflicted and deliberately inflicted wounds.
Most notably, the excessive reliance on anonymous sources not only makes
readers suspicious, but also increases the potential for manipulation of
stories, or even the planting of false information, by sources with an agenda who prefer to remain in the shadows. Who, after all, outed Valerie Plame
as a CIA agent? An anonymous source with an agenda.
Who provided the forged document about President Bush's National Guard service
to CBS? An anonymous source with an agenda -- but was the target really the
President, or was it CBS? Ad nauseum.
Anonymity allows the reporter to "get the story," but it now seems to
entail unjustified risks.
Then, of course, the pressures of the high-speed news market have provoked
media organizations into rushing flawed stories into print or onto the air, and
made plagiarism or corrupt reporting both more tempting for journalists and
more difficult for editors to prevent. The reporter Jack Kelley's elaborate
fabrications, for instance, found fertile soil not just in his imagination, but
in the lax newsroom culture of USA Today, while Jayson
Blair at the New York Times operated with little editorial oversight but
with strong incentives to get the scoop. In turn, the same competition for
readers and advertising dollars translates into pressure to pander to the lowest
common denominator by making the news "entertaining." This has had
the paradoxical effect of turning off the very audience it was meant to woo --
for there is, believe it or not, a longing and a market for sober reportage.
Less visibly, the quick-and-easy cost-cutting strategies of both print and
television news, particularly the reduction of the number of professional
correspondents and the growing reliance on non-staff reportage, have made the
problem worse by increasing the potential for error and constricting the range
of coverage. The amount of information goes down, while the amount of opinion
goes up; hard facts become scarcer, while "perspectives" propagate;
news from
All that said, the most serious wounds to the
reputation of the media are those inflicted from without. The conservative
movement has had its sights set on the journalistic establishment for 35 years,
and takes every error, every lapse, as an opportunity to pile on. The goal is very
clear: to discredit or destroy non-conservative points of view by intimidating
the media from reporting them, to hamper the media's traditional
"watch-dog" function, and to shift public attitudes rightward by
framing centrist or neutral reportage as "liberal" bias. At the same
time, the current administration has virtually gotten into the news business
itself, using the fake White House correspondent Jeff Gannon (real name James
D. Guckert) to lob softball questions at press
conferences, and paying conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, through the
Education Department, to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. The problem,
beyond the obvious one of government propaganda, is that these shenanigans
don't just redound to the credibility of the administration, but to the
reliability of news generally. Who knows, on any given day, where our
information is coming from? What's its provenance, its history, its purpose?
Those are the kinds of questions that can lead people to dismiss everything, to
throw out the baby with the bath-water -- and God knows there's a lot of
bath-water out there.
So what to do? How should we hew our way through the jungle of information that
surrounds us? For their part, consumers of the news need to be active gatherers
and interpreters of knowledge. Obviously, that means evaluating any particular
purveyor news according to the standards of good journalism: Do they have an
established history of getting the facts straight? Professional reputation does
matter. Do they seem to aim for objectivity (elusive though it may be) instead
of copping out with mere "balance"? Simply quoting two sides of an
issue is no substitute for independent analysis. Are they honest about their
limitations and their perspective? Much better to have a
forthright argument than covert spin. Is the reasoning strong when it
comes to complex issues? Few things offend the principle of informed democracy
more than intellectual superficiality. Which sources have been consulted, and
how knowledgeable and/or neutral do they seem?
Being active, engaged consumers of news also entails the recognition that
each of us will probably gravitate toward sources that reflect our own
pre-existing biases and inclinations, and that we
have to get outside our comfort zone to be fully informed. That might mean
putting down the Utne Reader and
picking up The Economist, or -- if the example is not too outlandish --
flipping the dial from Rush Limbaugh to NPR. Certainly it involves acquiring
the critical mass of information needed to judge the validity of new
information or unfamiliar claims.
Finally, however, readers have a responsibility to be skeptical of
skepticism, which too easily grades into laziness or apathy. Question
authority, but also respect institutional histories. Read the blogger, but also
respect the credentials of the paid professional. In today's information
whirlwind, the credibility of particular media outlets may be a hard thing to
judge, but it's still possible to separate the wheat from the chaff. The
wheat's there, and it nourishes us all.
Next month: Specific ideas for how journalism can work to restore
its cultural authority -- without which it cannot fulfill its indispensable
democratic purpose.
WIT AND WISDOM
Obi Wan Cannoli? Princess Lettuce? Tofu-D2?
Indeed. These are among the characters in the Organic Rebellion,
fighting against the evil corporate empire and the Dark Side of the Farm. In
the short online movie "Store Wars," the
Organic Trade Association "hopes to attract a new generation of organic
consumers, especially 'Gen Xers' who grew up loving
Luke, Leia and Han, and are now increasingly
concerned about making healthy food choices for their families."
The spoof is hilarious. Mandatory viewing for all Uncommon
Denominator readers.
CHECK IT OUT
At a time when "faith-based" solutions to social problems are growing
in popularity; when international politics has become increasingly theologized;
when critical thinking as a schools subject is at low ebb; when the forces of
superstition, fundamentalism, and mythologization are waging a rear-guard campaign against reason and science -- at this
time the voice of the skeptic is more important than ever. Far from being
nihilistic, skepticism celebrates independence of thought, affirming the
ability of people to think for themselves, and to avoid the snares of a
labyrinthine world.
There's help, fortunately, for those skeptics who want some more hard
information to bring to the fray. In a work called The Skeptic's
Dictionary, Robert T. Carroll has compiled a long list (451 entries and
counting) of "Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous
Delusions," and provided information and guidance for "how to think
critically about them." From the Cardiff Giant to the philosopher's stone,
from Holocaust denial to past life regression, from Aleister
Crowley to Deepak Chopra, Carroll sets his sights on anything that smacks of
intellectual sloppiness or legerdemain. Be skeptical, of course, of what you
find in The Skeptic's Dictionary,
but do check it out.
POLL-WATCH
The most recent Pew Research
Center Political Typology survey revealed significant cleavages within both
the Right and the Left, as well as expected differences between those two major
divisions of the American electorate. The 2005 Political Typology sorts voters
into nine homogeneous groups based on values, political beliefs, and party
affiliation. The current study is based on two public opinion surveys -- a
nationwide poll of 2,000 interviews conducted Dec. 1-16, 2004,
and a subsequent re-interview of 1,090 respondents conducted March 17-27 of this
year.
Overall, the most dramatic contrast between Right and Left is on matters
dealing with force, pre-emptive strikes, and the Patriot Act. Within the
Right block, there are differences between the highest income subgroup and
those who are less well off, in attitudes about economic and domestic issues,
and the role of government in helping people. Within the Left block, the most
notable differences have to do with social and personal values.
While the majority of the public continues to get most of its news from
television, there are interesting differences within the political divisions.
The Right favors Fox News and among the Right-leaning groups, the subgroup with
the highest income is the most dependent on Fox. Young, well-educated people,
regardless of political orientation, favor the Internet over any individual TV
news source.
These differences and many others revealed by the survey may offer
opportunities to break apart the existing political divisions. This is
particularly important for progressives -- with fewer media resources and
hardly any political infrastructure at this point, we need to be smarter and
more focused in our efforts at change, and attentive to ways in which we can
pull together the fledgling progressive movement. Consider this poll report a
must-read if you're interested in changing
As part of the release of the 2005 Political Typology, the
-- Katherine
Forrest, M.D.
QUOTED!
"I thought I would just share with you what science says today about
silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't.
That is what the ultimate science shows. . . . In fact, there's no science that
shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you
healthier." -- Freshman U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), arguing against class-action lawsuits, as quoted
in the Feb. 7, 2005, Washington Post.
FEATURED ARTICLE
The following is an excerpt from Jeff M. Sellers's "Deliver Us From Wal-Mart?"
which appeared in the May 2005 edition of Christianity Today.
"As
it has grown into a powerhouse with sales of $256.3 billion-more than the sales
of Microsoft and retail competitors Home Depot, Kroger, Target, and Costco
combined-Wal-Mart has become a lightning rod nationwide in local tempests of
moral outrage. Church leaders (primarily mainline, liberal, and Roman Catholic)
have joined grassroots activists fearful that mindless global market factors
will steamroll human dignity.
"'Wal-Mart's practices are immoral and unfair,' says Reginald Williams
Jr., associate pastor for justice ministries at Trinity United Church of Christ
in
"Such anger perplexes other Christians who think of Wal-Mart as a
family-friendly place and a company founded on the biblical values of respect,
service, and sacrifice. Founder Sam Walton's autobiography indicates he taught
Sunday school in his church, prayed with his children, and had a strong sense
of calling to better people's lives. With the Protestant values of respect for
the individual, thrift, and hard work, Walton was eager to improve customers'
living standards through low prices….
"Some Christians may be thankful for the values behind the Wal-Mart
phenomenon, but others are voicing some of the unprecedented hostility toward
the company. A biblical look at the retailer's labor issues may help
Christians, among the one-third of Americans who visit Wal-Mart at least once a
week, to discern whether they honor God in purchases and investments in the
company."
Click here to
read the whole article.
HAPPENINGS
New Fellow -- The Commonweal Institute is pleased to welcome Chris
Bowers as a new Fellow. Chris is the lead blogger for My Due Diligence, and is on the executive
committee of BlogPac. He has a B.A. in English from
ENDORSEMENTS
"Moderate and progressive members of Congress need a substantial resource
that can develop public support for our whole range of issues in a timely
fashion, and defend our gains from right wing attacks. The Commonweal Institute
is positioned to be that organization. I hope to see them grow quickly."
-- Congressman Mike Honda, D-San Jose, CA
GET INVOLVED
If you agree with Mike Honda (see above), there are a number of ways you can
help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals.
Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator
to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal
Institute. Getting the word out is crucial.
You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal
Institute. Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal
Institute an effective organization. $100 would help so much! Even a
contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many
moderates and progressives. Click here to
contribute online. Or call 650-854-9796. Your support is essential.
© 2005 The Commonweal
Institute
To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, send a blank message to: ci-newsletter-subscribe@svpal.org.
-- or
--
To subscribe from an email address other than your regular one, go to mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-newsletter, and
then enter your name and email address and click on "Subscribe."
Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber
information with any other organization or with individuals.