"Well, I mean, I think your point about local law enforcement is really the key issue here. The script from which Ashley Todd was reading in describing herself as a young white woman sexually assaulted by a violent black man in the name of sort of black political power like Barack Obama is a very old script. It‘s at least 100 years old. And it goes to the racial terrorism in the American south. But the key in that old-fashioned racial terrorism was that African-Americans were outside the power of the law. The law didn‘t step in to protect them as citizens. In this case, what we saw instead was a kind of measured response, a willingness, obviously, to listen to a potential victim. We don‘t ever want to get to a place where we don‘t listen to, you know, alleged victims of sexual assault. And that‘s part of why it‘s so dangerous to say it‘s happened when it hasn‘t."
-Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Associate Professor of Politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, guest on MSNBC's 'The Rachel Maddow Show' on Oct. 24, 2008
THE HYPE:
In every election cycle, policy divides frequently drift into deeply personal realms. Considering the dire circumstances we as a nation will face in the coming years, and the increase in pressure and tensions as November 4 drifts near, it is also no surprise that voters experience an augmenting sense of urgency as an election approaches. However, the partisan rancor has been amplified in recent months beyond the levels of recent years, at times drifting into realms of violence. In October, the media circulated images of people entering, interrupting, or leaving Republican rallies yelling violent threats against and associating Senator Barack Obama with “terrorist interests.” Then there was the coverage of the Halloween display of Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin hanging by the neck under the labels of “art” and “good fun” by its creator. And the news cycle recently picked up the lies of a very sick individual named Ashley Todd, who lied about being mugged on the basis of a campaign sticker, in the process evoking a number of racist traditions in American political history. These stories are only reflective of the state of mind of the particular individuals. But it’s only fair to ask how we, and they, got to this point. What factors lead individuals to the conclusion that this expression is acceptable, necessary, and justified?
The primary response would be the campaigns that have circulated hate materials. However, the media itself is sometimes the exploited outlet. There have been a number of instances through the campaign cycle where the media has leapt on evocative, uncorroborated stories and Internet hearsay: the Obama madrassa falsehoods, Palin’s book banning bull, colored coverage that juxtaposed lipstick analogies. The Ashley Todd debacle represents a dangerous foray into media missteps, to say the least. In a 24-hour news cycle, the competition of contributions from the blogosphere aggravate the already dire need for scoops on other networks, and the ability to substitute commentary to fill airspace create a susceptible host for the parasite of misinformation.
The media is also a business, and relies on ratings to generate ad revenue. Media is prone to these Ashely Todd covering lapses in judgment when these motivations combine with a conflict in its orientation. The media is also unable in some instances to address the way to address political life. On the one hand, the role of the media is to inform the viewer of occurrences: “this happened” journalism. However, the media is also supposed to be an objective distributor of fact—not everything released by campaigns is going to be accurate, and some believe that the media should act as an arbiter of truth. In fact, the reliance on and manipulation of this divide contributed to some of the most notable campaign successes—see your Lee Atwater, James Carville, Karl Rove interactions with the press. In light of the upturn in violent imagery, has the media been responsible in bridging this divide?
“THIS HAPPENED” JOURNALISM:
A main focus of news media outlets is to provide intellectually curious citizens with access to information about occurrences in their community and throughout the world. There is also an implied credibility in the normative notions of a media commitment to objectivity and fact-based reporting. This leads the electorate to a kind of passive activity in their interactions with media: they are not in control of the agenda, but they learn through exposure to media. Similar informative effects have been demonstrated in the study of political ad campaigns. However, there is a grave danger in the inactivity of the electorate and the implications of uncritical regurgitation—people are often unaware of the manipulative effects of language on their thoughts and perceptions. The media also determines the “frame” of a narrative: information that the viewer can and cannot see. It’s the reason that authoritarian societies restrict the press. With control of what and how information is perceived comes control of the public consciousness. Just as dangerous as active manipulation of reporting is entirely passive reporting, or granting equal weight to both views of an issue without regard to disparities in the factual foundation of the specific side. Passive reporting follows the format “x says this, y says that.” Through the statement, there is an implication that both x and y have equal merit, even if y is a fringe opinion with little empirical support. The danger in journalism comes from investing too heavily in either end of the spectrum.
These fears about propaganda and passive reporting served as inspiration for investment in the Internet. The Internet serves as a channel of communication not only between individuals, but also between society and the media. Through news comments or the blog ring, individuals can have a discussion with the media. The search engine resources and virtual record of video also grant individuals an active role in news creation, and resources to investigate information that resonates with their particular value set. However, in attempting to compete with the fast, commercial-free, instant gratification of the Internet, the media often falls victim to pushing stories through without fully examining the facts of the situation—it’s the reason Dan Rather lost his job, and Ashley Todd’s self-mutilation ran so frequently. It’s also been demonstrated that people have a psychological inclination to seek information that furthers their perceptions about society. So with an increased activity of the electorate also comes the ability to further insulate oneself from facts that conflict with one’s worldview, beyond interpreting stories to actively searching for something that corroborates these beliefs. So has the Internet really helped? And has the media been effective in maintaining a balance between objectivity and fact?
ACCURACY IN ANALYSIS:
The main concerns about media analysis are the dissolution of debate into infotainment, the dissolution of debate into an exchange of factual inaccuracies, and manipulation of the format to the benefit of one side. The ad watch was one of the first methods developed by the media as a check on the political process. However, primitive ad watches actually served to strengthen negative advertising by recycling the message of the candidate, focusing on and rating the “truthiness” of a single ad, and utilizing partisan sources. By repeating the advertisement, the media was exposing individuals to its informative effects. By focusing on one advertisement, the media was creating the image of ganging up on the specific candidate. By using quotes from sources within campaigns, the ad watch diminished the questions of fact to questions of a partisan nature.
Political commentary is another solution to these complex questions of the role of the media. The structure is simple: reporter introduces the story, two partisans clearly representing the interests of a candidate or campaign speak on the issue, reporter acts as moderator in discussion of the story. The format is intended to address the weakness of a media analysis: a reporter speaks first to highlight the reality of situations, the partisans are clearly identified as such to give the viewer insight as to the motivation of the content, and the reporter ideally steps in to correct factual inaccuracies presented by the partisan. However, this format demonstrates a number of the same drawbacks as the ad watch, allowing talking points to pose as news and stories to evolve into partisan discussions. It breaks down complex issues into a “this-or-that” exchange. The process is also very open to manipulation by the reporter, as well as the selection of the spokesmen for each “side.” This is why it’s completely different to experience commentary between networks, and between individual commentators. The round table has been utilized to diminish this effect, but can experience the drawbacks of hyperplularism, as mocked by Jon Stewart in the Daily Show’s discussion of CNBC’s use of eight commentators on the economy as “the octabox!”
Another complication stems from the psychology of the voter, particularly with the principle of association by contiguity. When the viewer witnesses the commentator linked to discussion of a candidate, the comments become associated with networks in the brain affiliated with emotions about campaigns and candidates. Therefore, the policy of the candidate can become congested with sources that are not affiliated with campaigns. These links are highly important due to the way that Americans tend to make voting decisions: in a highly uninformed and emotionally charged manner. Americans have a combined sense of civic duty to vote as well as a short political attention span. It has been demonstrated that, politically, people make decisions based on feelings about party, followed by feelings about candidate, and then if still undecided feelings about issues. These associations give voters a sense that they are making an informed decision without having any specific information, meaning it is extremely important to have a connection to the associations with one’s campaign. Considering these effects and news coverage, can there be a plausible link between media of all forms and the recent manifestations of negative sentiments in our political environment? And what does that mean for the candidates as voters enter the booth?
Investigating the inoculation theory of communication provides another interesting dimension to the conflict. This theory states that an individual’s first exposure to an incident determines the way that the individual will react to the incident in later circumstances. It’s the “Oh, I’ve heard of that!” effect. The argument can be made that hearing a rumor from a news outlet is beneficial because it is contained to the empirical and less likely to be colored by emotional sentiments and build emotional associations with voters. This is assuming the best of the media. The most dangerous circumstances, aside from outright manipulation of coverage or the mere repetition of the claim without analysis comes in the form of risky, uncorroborated stories. If an individual’s experience with a story is colored by the first exposure, reporting on a story before all the facts and evidence are examined have the potential for individuals to believe that the story is true. Even when confronted by later evidence. Understanding inoculation, is it a stretch to assert that, for the woman dubbed as “Crazy McCain Lady” by Saturday Night Live to still believe that Barack Obama is “an Arab,” even when John McCain himself refuted the claim? Why address risky stories understanding their detrimental impacts on political discourse?
THE BEAT:
These questions and relationships are all fascinating and complicated, and there is still a learning curve as we discover this manipulation of the press is conscious. The Internet is a powerful, wonderful, and dangerous resource due to the high volume of user-control. It’s a lot harder for a candidate to deny saying something when it’s on YouTube or a news website’s video search, as Representative Michelle Bachmann is learning this election cycle after her encounter on Hardball. But it’s also a lot easier to spread photos of a candidate in African garb to perpetuate notions that he’s a Muslim extremist and play on the implicit bigotry of the electorate. The increased resources and savvy also contribute to the prevalence of false information, as well as the voter’s capability to cling to falsehoods.
The media is slowly learning the lessons of history, becoming more critical of its sources. Not all outlets picked up the Ashley Todd story before it became exposed as a fraud, and commentators are becoming better equipped to understand and question the distortions of voting records and 527 claims after the lessons of the 2004 election. Case and point: the treatment of Jerome Corsi’s book on the 2004 candidate, and the treatment of Jerome Corsi’s book on the 2008 candidate.
The coverage of radical individuals is also detrimental to campaigns, because these violent images become affiliated, through networks in the brain, with the campaign. Risky stories are covered due to the media environment of “get it first,” and the willingness of the viewer to consume the product, but also due to the media’s sense of duty to report something has occurred as part of the informative process. This may be detrimental or beneficial, as the inoculation theory of communication discusses that people’s associations with a claim are connected to their first exposure of the incident.
In attempting to suppress any form of media, the questions of boundaries become so overwhelming that the absence of regulation is a necessity. However, this freedom is in and of itself a challenge. The media has to be responsible in the manner that it chooses stories, because we trust our news outlets to be responsible. Don’t be the reporter that cries wolf. Adhere to ethical standards and check your facts, or risk desensitizing the public when something serious actually occurs.
