Last Updated: September 23, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Book review
Using the Clinton-Lewinsky matter as an example, ‘Warp
Speed’ finds that the pressure to keep things entertaining or new is becoming
more important than ethical journalism
One might assume this book deals mainly with the Clinton-Lewinsky story,
but its scope is much broader, and it very neatly summarizes the state
of journalism today. Admirably, it also provides clear and practical steps
to improve the situation we find ourselves in after the events of 1998.
First, the bad news:
The press’s role as gatekeeper has eroded; just about every scrap of
rumor and innuendo was thrown out for public consumption during the presidential
scandal. That happened at least in part because there are now so many outlets
for news, including 24-hour television networks and the Internet (a “problem
of excess capacity”), and a deadline “every minute,” which encourages publication
of incomplete stories. As the scandal unfolded, news organizations often
repeated what others had reported without checking facts independently.
Use of anonymous sources and publication of single-source stories has
increased. Cautions about backgrounding with multiple sources fell by the
wayside in certain cases, though not in others. The determining factor
was sometimes only an editor’s intuition. What makes this especially dangerous
is that many sources are quite savvy about how to manipulate the press,
and the press sometimes seems unaware of that, or at least unconcerned.
In an increasingly fragmented market for news, with growing competition
for audiences’ attention, the media seem almost pathetically desperate
for “the big story.” Why? It’s “cheaper and easier” than “covering the
globe and presenting a diversified menu of news,” Kovach and Rosenstiel
wrote. By blowing stories out of proportion, journalists abdicate their
“social responsibility to put the news into perspective.”
Commentary and opinion more often appear within news stories. The public
has noticed and is not impressed. “The principle of keeping fact separate
from suspicion and analysis separate from agenda-setting is no longer clearly
honored,” the authors wrote. This tendency builds on the practice of some
journalists, such as the San Francisco Examiner’s Chris Matthews, to appear
regularly on television as pundits, perhaps making allegations that would
not hold up in print.
The “argument culture,” as described by Deborah Tannen in her 1998 book,
is fueling the ascendancy of chatter over real reporting. As Tannen wrote,
“Appearance in print or on television has a way of lending legitimacy,
so baseless claims take on a mantle of possibility.” Kovach and Rosenstiel
point to the need “to fill the time” cheaply on networks such as MSNBC
as a primary motivation. It’s economical to set up two groups of commentators,
chosen for their ability to disagree, and much less work than exploring
an issue in depth.
As the news media become less discriminating about “what is news and
what is not,” the public is becoming more discriminating. As a result,
“the press may well be putting its authority at serious risk,” the authors
contend.
The authors have dubbed this current news environment the “Mixed Media
Culture,” taking into account the interplay of print, TV and Internet news.
It also encompasses the increasing merger of news and opinion, a condition
to which the authors devote considerable attention. These trends did not
begin last year; the authors state that a shift in this direction has been
under way since the 1970s.
The good news is that Kovach and Rosenstiel don’t wring their hands
and merely bemoan the sorry state of journalism.
News organizations need to move decisively to “brand” themselves in
this crowded, competitive environment, the authors assert. The speed of
information has made scoops meaningless. What matters now is values and
standards, reflected in both the topics covered and how the coverage is
presented.
By identifying its values and standards and making them explicit to
both the news staff and the audience, a news organization can get a grip
on credibility. It can differentiate itself from competitors. It can, in
the end, protect the bottom line.
In Chapter 4, the authors provide fine practical guidelines for evaluating
when to use anonymous sources, including the suggestion that journalists
extend this condition to any anonymous source: If the source is lying,
the anonymity deal is off.
In Chapter 9, they put the burden on newsroom leadership. Codifying
standards — for truth, for sourcing, for repeating the reports of others,
for stating opinions off the Op-ed page, for reporting on the personal
lives of public officials, for what a reporter can say as a talk-show guest
— is the responsibility of editors. The trouble journalism is in results
from not setting solid ground rules, from following vague principles that
editors have not articulated in their own organizations — which allows
the standards to change in different situations.
The speed of news today demands that the standards be spelled out in
advance, the authors insist. There’s no time to debate and reflect anymore,
so the newsroom had better know what it stands for and where it draws the
line.
If the newsroom knows, it can tell the audience. If the audience knows,
then that news organization stands out from the swelling crowd — it has
something of value to sell.
McAdams was until recently the Web strategist at the American Press
Institute. This summer she becomes a Knight Chair Professor at the University
of Florida, focusing on journalism technologies and the democratic process.
