Mass Media Malpractice
It's not always what they say, or don't. It's how they say it.
A friend of mine sent me this email yesterday:
I don’t want to read about a former President’s mental decline because
a journalist got a book deal.
I want to read a report about the current President’s mental decline by
a journalist brave enough to speak out now.
This was his response to the news of not one but two new books documenting Joe Biden’s apparent decline. (My thoughts about that here.) But it’s not just the books we need to worry about.
“A free people need a free press,” opined A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times, the other day. Yes, we do. And we need lawyers who — true to their own oaths of office — are at least as concerned about the rule of law as they are about their firms’ profitability.
Given Mr. Sulzberger’s evident distress — which he expressed, for better or worse, against the backdrop of world events rather than the domestic efforts to suppress speech — I was appalled to see the headline: C.I.A. Rejects Diversity Efforts Once Deemed as Essential to Its Mission.
I have so many questions, and I’ve not yet read the article. If these “diversity efforts” were “once seen” as essential, why are they not now? Because the administration has decided, without evidence, that they are not? That is hardly — as those in health care might say — evidence-based medicine. So back to that headline: do better, Gray Lady. Try something like this: “CIA Rejects Diversity Efforts Designed to Sharpen Effectiveness,” or even “CIA Rejects Diversity.” Your own efforts — pretenses, really — for agnosticism on every issue (especially those in controversy) are a disservice to your readers, to your legacy, and to journalism.
As the old saw goes: good journalism should comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. Your formulation errs too much on the side of the comfortable. We are all paying a steep price for that choice.