Skip to Content

Tabitha Justice's blog

How journalism became a weapon of the politics of personal destruction

Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:06pm — Tabitha Justice

Tabitha Justice is a student at Marshall University in West Virginia, studying Online Journalism and International Affairs. She is the founder of Coffee Party 2.0's pilot project, Citizens for Media Reform. Tabitha says she hopes her words challenge people to reconsider how they approach and interact with the world. Her motto is: "If curiosity killed the cat, I would have perished a long time ago."

By Tabitha Justice

In a previous article I wrote about the increasingly aggressive and attacking nature of argument culture in American media and how it has conditioned us to approach the democratic process, and, sadly, our lives as well, in a more adversarial and angry state of mind.  I examined the emergence of a cable industry convention in which arguments between people with extreme and opposite views are packaged and marketed as a news program, selling advertising of course, and defending the practice by claiming to show “both sides" of the debate — as if there can only be two.

The problem with this media production/consumption model is that it simplifies complex issues into angry sound bytes, and actively negates the validity of alternative points of view that are based more on fact than on emotion.  It also promotes partisanship and polarizing rhetoric over any form of cooperation or collaboration. By presenting politics as entertainment rather than a deliberative process, argument culture undermines the stability of our democracy. It infects civic discourse with misleading, ugly, and confusing rhetoric. It hinders the public's ability to fully understand the issues. And it discourages more civil, sensible people from engaging in politics, leaving important decisions to be made by those who are motivated by the thrill of conflict and contest, more so than a civic duty to problem-solve for the collective good.

In order to counteract this worsening, 30-year trend, we need to examine how and why argument culture became an acceptable media standard and why it continues to thrive.  There is no question that the concentration of power into a handful of media conglomerates has played a role in this, but I would suggest that there are two other factors that have had an equal if not greater influence on this degradation of journalistic standards: one is the tightening of the court requirements for a libel cases, and the other has to do with the elevation of the “star” journalist.

In his book, Feeding Frenzy, Larry Sabato divides modern political journalism into three historical periods:  

Lapdog Journalism — 1941 to 1966

Watchdog Journalism — 1966 to 1979

Junkyard Journalism — 1979 to the present

Lapdog Journalism refers to the period when mainstream journalism was more objective, but it also rarely challenged prevailing orthodoxy and accepted and repeated much of what those in power said. This era also protected public officials by revealing little about their private lives. The Vietnam War and Watergate stimulated the next period, 1966-1979, which is termed Watchdog Journalism. In the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, some journalists were heavily criticized for inserting commentary into their reporting but, perhaps more importantly, journalists also experienced an emotional burden of guilt, believing that they could have prevented tragic and traumatizing events had they been more aggressive in questioning authority. Reporters thus began to scrutinize the behavior of political officials, giving birth to an era of investigative journalism. This is also when we first saw journalists investigate and report upon the private lives of public officials — almost always, in the context of public performance.  

A 1964 Supreme Court ruling shook the foundations of journalism and, Sabato believes, ushered in the current era of Junkyard Journalism — 1979 to the present.

Downgraded! Follow the spin, or follow the source?

Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:38pm — Tabitha Justice

 "Compared with previous projections, our revised base case

scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to

expire by the end of 2012, remain in place.  We have changed

our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in

Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues."

— Standard & Poor press release Aug. 5, 2011    

Tabitha Justice is a student at Marshall University in West Virginia, studying Online Journalism an International Affairs. She is the founder of Coffee Party 2.0's pilot project, Citizens for Media Reform.

by Tabitha Justice
 
Sunday morning papers and talk shows will be spilling over with discussions of the Standard & Poor's credit rating downgrade of the United States. Let's wait and see how often we will hear or read the above statement from the original source of the story. Rather than having a meaningful and honest discussion of the reasons behind the downgrade, as outlined in Standard & Poor's press release, I am willing to bet that the discourse on Sunday will focus on endless blameful, partisan, and contradicting statements issued by politicians and pundits. In fact, we don’t have to wait until Sunday. Already major Republican figures have completely chosen to ignore the source of the story, in particular the fact that political brinkmanship, a lack of cooperation in Congress, and the lack of necessary revenue increases were primary factors in the downgrade decision. Instead they have placed all the blame on President Obama and the fact that we have a debt at all.  And there are Democratic figures quoting the two sentences above, while leaving out the fact that Standard & Poor's says it is not taking a position on whether restoring revenue, or making further spending cuts, should make up our budget gap.
 
America has just been downgraded for the first time in our history and we have a civic duty to go directly to the source to understand why this has happened and what the effects upon our nation may be. Before consuming more media entertainment and agenda-driven news, please read the press release from Standard and Poor's and watch this interview where CNN's Anderson Cooper went directly to the source, interviewing John Chambers of Standard and Poor's Sovereign Ratings department.
 
In the coming days there will be a firestorm of agenda-driven and profit-driven media productions for us to choose from, all with character actors barking hyperbolic statements about why the downgrade happened and which political party is to blame, but we aren't forced to listen.  As entertaining as it is, there is no one compelling us to support hyper-partisan storytelling by consuming their hyper-partisan products.  Unless the media we are consuming is educating us and expanding our knowledge of the facts, we should consider seeking other sources — or creating them ourselves. Media executives say they give us what we ask for, meaning that they create more of whatever sells. (However, as we established in my last column, pornography also sells but it seems standards of some kind prevent mainstream press from offering us that!) 
 

Argument culture still hurting America

Wed, 08/03/2011 - 2:01am — Tabitha Justice

Tabitha Justice is a student at Marshall University in West Virginia, studying Online Journalism and International Affairs. She is the founder of Coffee Party 2.0's pilot project, Citizens for Media Reform. Tabitha says she hopes her words challenge people to reconsider how they approach and interact with the world. Her personal motto is: "If curiosity killed the cat, I would have perished a long time ago."

by Tabitha Justice

Citizens for Media Reform is a Coffee Party 2.0 project that seeks to address the many shortfalls we find prevalent in our 21st century corporate controlled media. In our search in finding and addressing media’s “weak” spots, we have found one leader we absolutely admire. We believe Jon Stewart continually provides a great public service by pointing out and critiquing the many shortfalls of our media. Not only does he bring attention to serious issues in an entertaining way but he is able to use his platform to reach millions of people that may otherwise have remained unaware of serious ethical, dishonest and harmful media affairs. That's why we love him. We learn from him and are inspired by him.

Stewart has earned laughs as well as respect for his searing commentary on political bias, political theater, unbalanced reporting and sensationalized news stories.   Last week, his show included this brilliant segment that highlighted the tension between journalism and entertainment on one of the more respected, profit-driven media corporations, CNN: 

The Political Establishment, the Media Establishment, and We the People

Tue, 07/19/2011 - 11:52pm — Tabitha Justice

by Tabitha Justice

Today I invite you to join me on a journey to deconstruct the often confusing and frustrating relationship between the political establishment and the media establishment in America.  If we can understand the system, we can change it.  We can take the best parts of our media — the education, visibility and power — and strengthen our democracy.  We can get rid it of the worst parts of our media — the partisanship, misinformation and divisiveness — and begin to work together again, to see each other as fellow Americans instead of opponents.  So what do you say?  Want go on a media quest?

Why study the media?  I have heard it argued that the quality of a democracy is only as good as its legal framework, the participation of its citizens and the strength of their education and civic knowledge.  If we consider these three elements as the balancing legs of a democracy, it only takes one wobbly leg to overturn it.  While education can come from many different sources, historically, there has been no source more effective than the media.  This is something our founding fathers intimately understood.  That’s why the press is specifically mentioned for constitutional protection.  However, it is important to note the continued existence of a free press is not guaranteed.  There are no laws requiring citizens to seek out or provide journalism.  There are no laws that guarantee the quality of that journalism.  And there are few laws that protect the press from being purchased by powerful special interests and transformed into something else entirely. Quality journalism must be recognized, desired and demanded. And there is only one special interest who can do that: We the People.

Argument Culture and Junkyard Journalism

Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:07pm — Tabitha Justice

Tabitha Justice is a student at Marshall University in West Virginia, studying Online Journalism and International Affairs. She is the founder of Coffee Party 2.0's pilot project, Citizens for Media Reform. Tabitha says she hopes her words challenge people to reconsider how they approach and interact with the world. Her personal motto is: "If curiosity killed the cat, I would have perished a long time ago."

by Tabitha Justice

In a previous article I wrote about the aggressive and attacking nature of argument culture in American media and how it has conditioned us to approach the world in an adversarial frame of mind. In that article I discussed that the concept behind argument culture is that the best way to discuss any idea in the media is to set up a debate with people who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as “both sides.” The problem with this type of communication is that it actively negates the validity of alternative points of view, and promotes opposition and polarizing debate over any form of cooperation or cohesive discussion. Almost every aspect of argument undermines the stability of our democracy by disabling our ability to fully conceptualize issues, diminishing proper civil discourse and promoting opposition over compromise. The obvious question is; with all the negativity surrounding this type of media why has it overtaken our media and why does it continue to thrive? While there is no question that the concentration of media conglomerates has played a role in this, I would suggest that there are at least two other factors that have influenced this media degradation even more. One reason is the tightening of the court requirements for a libel case and the other has to do with the elevation of the “star” journalist.

dont use

Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:06pm — Tabitha Justice

 

Tabitha Justice is a student at Marshall University in West Virginia, studying Online Journalism and International Affairs. She is the founder of Coffee Party 2.0's pilot project, Citizens for Media Reform. Tabitha says she hopes her words challenge people to reconsider how they approach and interact with the world. Her personal motto is: "If curiosity killed the cat, I would have perished a long time ago."

In a previous article I wrote about the aggressive and attacking nature of argument culture in American media and how it has conditioned us to approach the world in an adversarial frame of mind.  In that article I discussed that the concept behind argument culture is that the best way to discuss any idea in the media is to set up a debate with people who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as “both sides.”  The problem with this type of communication is that it actively negates the validity of alternative points of view, and promotes opposition and polarizing debate over any form of cooperation or cohesive discussion.  Almost every aspect of argument undermines the stability of our democracy by disabling our ability to fully conceptualize issues, diminishing proper civil discourse and promoting opposition over compromise.   The obvious question is; with all the negativity surrounding this type of media why has it overtaken our media and why does it continue to thrive?  While there is no question that the concentration of media conglomerates has played a role in this, I would suggest that there are at least two other factors that have influenced this media degradation even more.  One reason is the tightening of the court requirements for a libel case and the other has to do with the elevation of the “star” journalist.

dont use this

Mon, 08/15/2011 - 8:06pm — Tabitha Justice

Tabitha Justice is a student at Marshall University in West Virginia, studying Online Journalism and International Affairs. She is the founder of Coffee Party 2.0's pilot project, Citizens for Media Reform. Tabitha says she hopes her words challenge people to reconsider how they approach and interact with the world. Her personal motto is: "If curiosity killed the cat, I would have perished a long time ago."

by Tabitha Justice

 In a previous article I wrote about the aggressive and attacking nature of argument culture in American media and how it has conditioned us to approach the world in an adversarial frame of mind. In that article I discussed that the concept behind argument culture is that the best way to discuss any idea in the media is to set up a debate with people who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as “both sides.” The problem with this type of communication is that it actively negates the validity of alternative points of view, and promotes opposition and polarizing debate over any form of cooperation or cohesive discussion. Almost every aspect of argument undermines the stability of our democracy by disabling our ability to fully conceptualize issues, diminishing proper civil discourse and promoting opposition over compromise. This raises questions as to how argument culture has become an acceptable media standard and why it continues to thrive. While there is no question that the concentration of media conglomerates has played a role in this, I would suggest that there are at least two other factors that have influenced this media degradation even more. One reason is the tightening of the court requirements for a libel case and the other has to do with the elevation of the “star” journalist.

In his book, Feeding Frenzy, Larry Sabato divides modern political journalism into three historical periods; Lapdog, Watchdog and Junkyard Journalism.  He refers to 1941 to 1966 as Lapdog Journalism. During this period mainstream journalism was more objective but it also rarely challenged prevailing orthodoxy and accepted at face value much of what those in power said.  This era also protected public officials by revealing little about their private lives. The Vietnam War and Watergate stimulated the next period, 1966-1979, which is termed Watchdog Journalism.  In the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate journalists were heavily criticized for lack of objectivity in their reporting but, perhaps more importantly, many journalists also experienced an emotional burden of guilt believing that they could have prevented or deterred events had they been more aggressive in questioning authority. Reporters thus began to scrutinize the behavior of political officials and through this came the era of investigative journalism.  This is also when the first discussion of private lives appeared, although, almost always, in the context of public performance.  Then, in 1964, a Supreme Court ruling shook the foundations of journalism and this, Sabato believes, had a large hand in forming the modern era, what he has termed Junkyard Journalism.

On March 29, 1960 the New York Times ran a full-page advertisement titled “Heed their Rising Voices”  purchased by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South.  The ad did not specifically name anyone but rather criticized the law-enforcement tactics used in southern cities to break up Civil Rights Demonstrations.   The city commissioner of one of the mentioned cities, Montgomery, Alabama, took issue with the advertisement and claimed it directly defamed him.  He sued the New York Times and won a civil case for $500,000 but the New York Times appealed the case and the Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the Times, holding that the Alabama libel law was a violation of the Times’ First Amendments rights.

Additionally, the NYT v Sullivan ruling distinguished that there are different requirements for public and private figures.  A private figure is one that has an “ordinary job” and has not voluntarily thrust themselves into a public controversy with the intention of changing public perception or outcome (ex. political and/or social issues).  As a private citizen one would have to prove (1) That the statement was false; and (2) That damages or an actual injury to one’s reputation or mental health had occurred; and (3) that the publisher was negligent in his duty to determine the truthfulness of the statement.  Public figures were split into two categories: (1) celebrities or people who “occupy positions of such pervasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes” (presidents, congressmen, etc.) and (2) As mentioned above, individuals who had involved themselves into a public controversies.  Public figures, however, would additionally have to prove “actual malice” to win a libel suit. Essentially, it would have to be proven that the publisher knew the information was false or they had reasonable inclinations to believe it may be false and acted with reckless disregard for the truth and published it anyway.  Because actual malice is almost impossible to prove, news organizations were able to aggressively go after public figures without fear of litigation.  (We must also account for the context of free speech.  Political and social commentary is the most highly protected form of speech; as a result almost all commentary concerning political figures and/or social issues is basically given a free pass. It is virtually impossible to hold media figures accountable for libel suits in this regard.  But this is an issue we will delve more into later.)

Sabato argues this provided too safe of a harbor and created a type of journalism that is “often harsh aggressive and intrusive, where feeding frenzies flourish, and gossip reaches print.  Every aspect of private life potentially becomes fair game for a scrutiny as a new, almost ‘anything goes’ philosophy takes hold.”  This also elevated the journalist voice and the news became as much about the narration as it was about the news source and in some cases even more so.  Thus, the “star” journalist was born.  Suddenly the interpretation of the facts became more important than the facts themselves and the reporter began to “question” the politician’s actions and intentions rather than actually question the politician; the journalist interpretation and voice then took center stage. This further evolved into journalist using ideological opponents to interpret and attack politicians’ statements.  Politicians and public figures were no longer shown making speeches or discussing issues in-depth but were rather reduced to sound-bites, with media outlets then turning to adversaries and pundits to attack them.  Conflict, rather than information, became the predominate theme in political coverage. 

But it doesn’t have to be this way.  We can have media that promotes in-depth analysis rather than conflict and opponent degradation but we can only have that if we start demanding it AND understanding it.  We are past the stage where we can claim ignorance to the harmful side effects of our angry and divisive media and I want to challenge you to start doing more.  Stop watching media personalities that yell degrade and talk over their guest rather than engaging them, this includes some media figures that many of us uphold.  Pointing the finger at ideological figures on “the other side” while praising those on your own side does nothing more than encourage this type of media.  Reach out to your media figures and ask for more information and less anger and start investigating what the media rules are.  Too many of us have just stood by believing that there is nothing that we can do to change things but that is just an excuse to let our democracy decay.  We all have a voice, and just as I have realized that my voice can make a difference so too can yours.  I have decided to speak out and help spread the message of change; imagine what could happen if we all start speaking out.

 

 

S&P Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating — Press Release

Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:34pm — Tabitha Justice

Standard & Poor’s took the unprecedented step of downgrading the U.S. government’s “AAA” sovereign credit rating on August 5, 2011 in a move that could send shock waves through global financial markets. The following is the original press release from Standard & Poor’s.  We are preserving it here word-for-word, in the event that it is altered elsewhere.

Syndicate content

 



Theme by Dr. Radut.