CULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnCONTEMPORARY JOURNALISMrnsuffers from many problems; to help usrnunderstand them, a quick imaginativernexereise might be useful. Not too longrnago, the South Carolina legislature hadrnto decide on the emotive issue of whetherrnto remove the Confederate battle flagrnfrom atop the state Capitol. The issuesrninoled were complex, and too familiarrnto be reccled here, but for present purposes,rnlet us imagine a newspaper stor’rnabout the event to decide whether it goesrnbeond die bounds of proper journalism.rnReporting on the diehard defenders ofrnthe flag, our hpothetical stor’ proceedsrnas follows: “‘You see senators in tears —rnthe’ know this vote ma well be dicir lastrn. . . r e never seen a vote that requiredrnmore courage.’… Manv lawmakers havernalso described being appalled at the mailrnand phone calls dic’ have receied fromrnopponents of the flag, who say the legislatorsrnare working for the devil and will gornto hell and should forget about being reelected.rn. . . And in some cases, the threatsrnappear to have backfired bv convincingrnlawmakers of the depth and breadth ofrnanh-flag feeling here, persuading diem torn’ote for the flag. . . . Senator X, asked toda’rnif she risked losing her scat with herrnote, said ‘All of us do, but so what?'”rnRight a\a, an’one with the slightestrnknowledge of journalistic standards willrnbe shaking his head and listing the elementar-rnflaws in the piece. Most glaring-rnK’, onl- representati’es of one side of thernargument are quoted at all, never mind atrnan- length; onlv flag defenders are portrayedrnsympatheticallv, and indeed, hcroicalh’;rnthe subjects of the stor’ possess anrnidentitv onlv insofar as thev epitomizernheroic or villainous causes; and unless wernscrupulously note the locahon of quotationrnmarks, it is all but impossible to tellrnwhen the writer has finished quotingrnthose selected pols with whom he agrees,rnand when he is expressing his own personalrnopinion. Well, that gi’es the gamernaway. The piece is so loaded, so repeatcdh’rncrosses any conceivable line behveenrnnews and editorial, that it must bernbogus. It cannot have appeared even inrnthe most unreconstructed newspaper inrnthe most conservative corner of thernSourii. Something so tendenhous mustrnhave appeared as a paper in a journalismrnclass, the sort of endeavor which the professorrnmarks widr an admoniton,- “See mernin office hours!”rnYet the article really did appear in almostrnexacdy the form quoted, and in anrnactual newspaper, naiiieh’, the New YorkrnTimes (“All die news that fits our ideolog}”),rnback on April 20. I made a couplernof minor changes: The state involved wasrnVermont, not South Carolina, and die issuernwas not the Confederate flag, butrnsame-sex ci’il unions (throughout thernpassage quoted, I substituted “flag” forrn”gay” or “civil union”); but odierwise, thernquotahons arc faithful enough. In fact, Irnleft out some of the more blatant bits ofrneditorializing. One glorious example:rn”Several senators said hostile messagesrnand phone calls made them think: if thisrnis what it is like for me, what have ga’srnand lesbians had to endure their wholernlives.-^ Self-evidend >•. gay civil unionsrnmust he approved immediateh’, even (orrnespeeiallv) in the face of massive resistancernbv that bunch of boobs and bigotsrnwe call the electorate. As journalistrnCarey Goldberg happilv admits, total oppositionrnto civil union is indicated byrn”public opinion polls, phone calls, lettersrnand town meeting votes”; nevertheless,rndie onh’ moral course is full speed ahead,rnand damn die demoeraev. And ves, inrnsomewhat different words, that is thernmain dirust of what purports to be objectivernjournalism in a major media outlet.rnOf course, knowing the precise issuesrnunder discussion provides die kev for understandingrnwhat is otherwise baffling,rnnamely, how a reputable paper couldrnhave presented such a shamelessK’ parti-rn.san piece under die guise of news, ratherrnthan editorial. If you were to sit a grouprnof journalists down and ask them to explainrnthe difference between news andrneditorial, most of them could probably dornit quite clearly and (in many cases) soberly.rnAs they learned in college courses,rnnews is meant to be a straight retelling ofrnevents or sayings, vhile political interpretationrnis properly left to the editorial page.rnBut —and this a crucially importantrn”but” —that distinction only holds whenrnwe are dealing witii issues on which reasonablernpeople can disagree. At somernpoint, though, the word somehow goesrnforth that a particular issue has moved beyondrnlegitimate controversy and into thernrealm ot uncontested metaphysical truth,rnand thereafter, no form of objeetivit}’ isrnrequired or welcomed.rnThis practice of shifting stories to arnhigher plateau iiiav’ go back to the desegregationrncrises of the early I960’s, whenrnvirtually none of the national media feltrnthat balance was appropriate, since thernstory was so literally black and white:rnThere were good guys and bad guys, civil-rnrights protesters and Klan yahoos, MartinrnLuther King and Orval Faubus. Arnjournalist did not have to make the slightestrnpretense of reporting on a whiternSoutherner as if he were a human beingrnwith rational opinions on anything.rnSince then, the range of stories deemedrnunworthy of balanced coverage has expandedrnenormously to include women’srnissues in die 1970’s, gays in the I980’s,rnguns and tobacco over the last decade;rnand the label of “ObvionsK” Correct” hasrnnow alighted upon gay marriage. Fifteenrnyears ago, that notion was several leaguesrnbeyond flaky: Now, it’s required doctrine.rnJust when did tiiat happen? I don’t recallrnbeing asked to vote on it.rnTwo questions strike me about thisrnprocess of issue elevation. The first isrntechnological: How exacdy does it happen?rnIs there a day or a moment when anrnedict proceeds from some Media FlighrnCommand Center, perhaps buried underrna mountain in Colorado? The speedrnand uniformit)- with which objecti’ih’ isrnabandoned on a given issue both suggestrnsome degree of coordination, though Irngennineh’ find it hard to believe that anythingrnso concerted exists. My secondrnquestion is psychological. Do mediarnpeople reporting on one of the ObviouslyrnCorrect issues still believe that they arernworking within traditional concepts ofrnfairness and objeetivit}? I have a horriblernsuspicion that they do, and they really seernnothing wrong in the simplistic agitproprnlanguage they adopt in such casesrn(“Seeking to defend his vicious Neanderthalrnprejudices. Representative Y declaredrnt h a t . . . ” ) . Here, surely, is an Orwellianrnphenomenon deserving intensernresearch, iiameh’, a whole profession ofrndoubleplusgood duckspcakers, who don’trneven acknowledge die’ are presenting arnpart)’ line. The onlv thing worse than anrnofficially controlled press is one that doesrnnot know it is controlled.rn— Philip JenkinsrnlULY 2000/7rnrnrn