MODERN American newspapers adhere to a sacrosanct division between the news and opinion sections. Yet do democratic societies require this strict separation? Gail Collins, New York Times editorial page editor, maintains the opinion section's independence because the separation is important to how we view journalism. During the Jefferson Society speaker series on Friday, Collins emphasized the importance of media divisions between analysis (or what happens in background news), and commentary.
Although this distinction allows editors to preserve the independence of each section, the media environment is evolving -- media elites are no longer the sole media distributors, producers or news commentators. Web-based and cable television media empower every individual, no matter his social standing, ideology or profession, to comment on the news. The decline of fact-based reporting and traditional sources, however, does not equate to uninformed citizenries and ineffective democracies. Traditional papers like The New York Times should not discount innovative journalistic attempts that merge commentary and news analysis.
Collins compares these trends to nineteenth-century American newspapers in which every individual finds a niche, garners enough capital and "starts yelling." The Internet fosters this same environment -- everyone is involved because the capital threshold is low.
Many traditional media elites believe "bloggers" and "talking heads" taint the sanctity of democratic media institutions. If readers choose news sources that spin stories in their favor, the populace will become irreconcilably divided. Society will thereby self-perpetuate ideological differences since individuals prefer news content amenable to their personal tastes.
The question then becomes whether this departure from the separation of opinion and news truly tarnishes the media's democratic functions as the "Fourth Estate." Media practitioners and institutions have social responsibilities to inform the citizenry, to provide "fair and balanced" assessments and to place meaningful contexts on issues of public concern. "New media" is overtly biased and disregards "fair and balanced" standards. Yet "new media" does not eradicate all forms of factual reporting and commitments to truth.
More individuals are media producers in these new technologies, and therefore, the populace has more news sources, varied viewpoints and unlimited coverage of topics. Citizens no longer rely on morning newspapers for information. "New media," which provide 24-hour access, function as reliable informers despite traditional newspapers' complaints of objectivity breaches.
Objectivity, however, is never fully attained -- even at the most reputable institutions like The New York Times, every editor, reporter or owner has his or her own biases. It is difficult to preserve objectivity when production space is limited and editors must choose story topics. Why run the Michael Jackson trial on the front page instead of China's antagonistic Taiwan declaration? Media practitioners make news selection decisions on a daily basis.
"New media," with improved technology and fewer space constraints, overcome these limitations of biased selection. Now, individuals search the Internet for stories excluded from morning papers or find different viewpoints not addressed in the editorial section. Although there is no "brick wall" dividing news and opinion on the Internet, individuals have more options, viewpoints and information.
Further, bloggers and commentators, like Bill O'Reilly, do not ignore their obligations to credibility. Factual news is important to democratic societies and its citizens. Lies, deception and moral offenses are not tolerated in American media and are often exposed by media watchdogs and critics.
These "new media" sources simply provide factual news in different contexts. This may exclude the environmentalist plight or have racist undertones, yet other sources and viewpoints are only one click away.
The necessity of traditional fact-based news reporting is diminishing in today's society. Many traditionalists will condemn media technology and castigate opinionated bloggers and "talking heads" parading as news sources. Yet individuals are bound to have views on issues of public concern. In a factual news story, the individual may identify with one side of the argument and ignore the reporter's attempt to represent the opposing side. The importance of "fair and balanced" assessments thereby succumbs to the media's role to spread information -- there is no harm in exposing individuals to opinion-based reporting.
If every citizen shared the same opinions, we would be living in a communistic society. Opinions and media dialogue are healthy for democracy. New media allow every citizen to express his voice and read desired sources. This does not demoralize, divide or stupefy our society -- instead, we are gaining more access, more sources and more freedom.
Michael Behr's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at mbehr@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
