The things of which I write have been brewing in my mind for quite some time. Like many people I know, I also have become more and more concerned with the degree of anger, strife and division to be found within both the USA and Canada. If one is paying attention to the rapid evolution of conflict within our society, where we are headed becomes an obvious concern. It was following a recent comment by President Trump, that I felt compelled to finally put my musings to paper.
On February 17/17, Trump made the comment that the media is not his enemy so much as it is an enemy of the American people. Of course this stirred up much discussion and concern as to the veracity of the statement and the important role of the press/media in our society. Indeed, one of the most important rights and freedoms we enjoy is the so called “freedom of the press” – this coupled with our freedom of speech/expression exists at the very foundation of a free society.
So then, what of Trump’s comment? Is it a baseless accusation or is there any truth to it? In order to answer these questions, I’d first like to look a little deeper into the issues and context that surround such comments. Also, though I referenced Trumps comments, this writing is not meant as a defence or condemnation of Trump and/or his policies.
In both Canada and the USA the press enjoys a unique and protected position that has been specifically written into each country’s constitution. In return for this very special (protected) status, there are certain responsibilities a free press has:
1. to truthfully report the news “fully, accurately and fairly”
2. hold government leaders accountable to the people
3. educate citizens to all the facts so they can make informed decisions, and
4. connect people with each other in civil society.
Given the special and unique relationship a free press has within a free and democratic society, the question becomes: “Is our mass media – the so-called ‘mainstream media’ fully living up to those responsibilities?” If they are, they are unquestionably not only an asset to our society but an indispensible necessity. If they are failing to live up to all responsibilities, they then become a dysfunctional liability – and if they purposely abandon their responsibilities, they can become downright destructive and subversive.
The real question then is; to what extent is the media living up to their responsibilities? Are there areas where they are failing and the dysfunction is significantly enough that it is of real concern?
Aside from the anti-Trump screed included within his opinion piece, Neil Macdonald makes some very valid points. His whole article, “Trust in the media is sinking and it's time to act: Neil Macdonald” can be found at http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/news-journalism-standards-regulation-neil-macdonald-1.3991443?cmp=rss.
The following quotes are taken from his article:
“…Like a stupid cop or a nasty bureaucrat, or, worse, a maliciously dull-witted doctor or lawyer or stockbroker, a bad reporter can ruin a person's life, or at least a person's career.
But there's a difference: all of the other occupations I just mentioned are legally leashed and held accountable, to one extent or another. People in those jobs must qualify for them, and submit to strict professional standards…
…There is no uniform qualification for a reporter, no uniform code of behaviour. Journalism has vigorously resisted any efforts to legally define journalism, or any sort of peer review…
…A huge swath of journalism doesn't even bother pretending self-regulation…
…Gallup's most recent testing of public opinion suggested that trust in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" is at its lowest level in polling history.
Only 32 per cent of respondents said they trusted the mainstream media…
… This is not a new phenomenon, either. Gallup has traced a steady decline in trust for two decades.”
I believe the two decade decline, which Macdonald has identified, is significant and has its’ roots in the social engineering push of the progressive movement. When I speak of social engineering, I am referring specifically to efforts meant to influence and/or change particular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale. Whether by governments, media or private groups, the goal of social engineering remains that of attempting to produce desired changes in a target population. Mass media could conceivably be used as a tool for large scale societal change if any political movement could successfully introduce their particular ideology into journalistic schools. Once introduced and implemented as teaching ideals to emerging journalists, the press would eventually begin to reflect those ideologies – and this is what I believe has happened.
With the above in mind, to one degree or another, the media has often become the legs carrying the message of the progressive left in their quest to engineer society into their view of a liberal paradise. Often disguised under lofty, idealistic labels (often containing terms to suggest social justice or fairness and freedom) the progressive agenda gets moved forward by a media that is more than willing to tirelessly promote the issue du jour until it is accepted. Whether the issue is open borders, immigration policy, homosexual policy, sexual/gender identity, school curriculum, political correctness or fiscal policy, the mainstream media most-often abandons a neutral, fact-based position in favour of a pro-liberal stance…while smearing and denigrating the conservative position. The political struggles between the left and the right are kept alive by a media driving the wedge ever deeper into the fabric of our culture.
This media bias can be seen in a great many of our recent elections. Conservative leaders are almost uniformly misrepresented and presented in the least desirable light possible whilst liberal leaders receive much more favourable treatment. This has been true for every conservative leader I can think of during the past 50 years. While the argument usually presented is that the comments and criticisms are specific to a particular conservative leader, the fact is that the same pejorative terms are often dragged out and used in smear campaigns against all conservative leaders. Traditionally, the media (being the sacred cow that it is) would be largely left alone and unchallenged. In recent years however, there has begun to be some push-back and more attempts to hold the media to account.
Now things really start to get interesting - enter Donald Trump and the USA presidential election of 2016. When Trump entered the presidential race, he was treated as a curiosity, a joke and a headline grabber. He was scoffed at and not taken seriously by the media. Yet in a field of 17 candidates, Trump eventually won the Republican nomination. In the run to the White House against the Democratic candidate (Hillary Clinton) Trump was the media underdog and not expected to win. Against the odds, Trump took on the Democratic machine, hundreds of millions of dollars spent against him in damning and negative ads, a very negative and at times hostile mainstream media and won a stunning (for some) victory.
As has often been the case, many in the media seemed to feel they can constantly attack but be immune to counterattack. If and when someone does attempt to counterattack, the media often respond with a kind of self-righteous indignation. In my opinion Trump was able to overcome much of the negative press because he confronted them quickly and directly. Whereas in the past, many leaders of conservative parties would have attempted to deal with the negative commentary by becoming defensive or by attempting to rise above the fray by ignoring the negative noise while trying to get their message out, Trump counterpunched. He hit back and he hit hard which often found the media in the unfamiliar position of defensiveness. He called them on their bias, he called them on their sloppiness and bad journalism and he called them on their attempts to deceive. This, I believe, worked because this is what the public wanted and were waiting for. If, however, the media had not already lost their believability and respect, the people would have believed them and not voted for Trump.
Many within the mainstream media, much like a spoiled child needing a good spanking, wailed long and loud after finally received their comeuppance. Now, after the election is over, too many in the media still seem not to have learned. Instead of acting adult, gathering the facts and reporting the news, they persist in a sort of angry rage to try to take down the one who dared expose them and the (no longer hallowed) halls of ‘acamedia.’ (Academia X Mass Media). In the process, they continue to drive a wedge into those things about which there is already some division…and they cause the rift to widen even more. Maybe it’s time the media grew-up and began to hold themselves and each other accountable…maybe there needs to be some sort of standards and oversight of the media’s actions.
In closing, listen to the words of Neil Macdonald as it pertains to holding the media accountable and responsible:
“But the wider distrust expressed in polls is something else. Journalism is losing the support of rational, intelligent, thoughtful consumers, and that is a serious threat.
Recapturing it probably means a little less snark (millennials, especially, seem to loathe snark and smug, of which I am a foremost practitioner), less blatant clickbait (in some ways, news websites are becoming a collection of bad listicles), more policy and less politics, and less pusillanimous surrender to ratings, something that helped create Trump.
But nothing would go further in recapturing public trust than becoming a true profession, with standards, qualifications, accountability and enforceable rules. As much as I shudder at being judged by other journalists, there is no longer any other way.”
