I’m Not The Only One

by Daniel Cuevas

Originally published on Political Storm on October 21, 2007.

By now most of America is aware of Dan Rather’s recent failure to verify the authenticity of some signed memos claiming to detail President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s. In the wake of this scandal, I felt it was appropriate to explain why the Dan Rathers and the Jason Blairs of this world decide to do what they do.

When most people think of American journalists, they might envision paparazzi stalking the flavor of the month or sifting through said flavor’s garbage, looking for a “hot story.” Major media outlets in this country embellish and play-up news stories so much that American journalism is stereotyped as biased and sensationalistic. The editorial adage, “if it bleeds, it leads” comes to mind. Has anyone ever asked why reporters and editors slap a story on Paris Hilton’s newest dress on the front page of a daily, read by millions, while a story about genocide or civil war in Africa ends up on page 52?

With news organizations having to compete with far more entertaining media venues like television, video games, sports and movies to the most entertained society in the history of the world, the American editor is faced with two choices. He can put his ethics aside sell lots of newspapers and get high ratings; or he can report the news in a fair and accurate manner and be labeled boring, a death sentence in this industry.

Some news organizations like the New York Post have completely chosen style over substance, frequently getting facts wrong but at the same time selling scores of newspapers. Most newsrooms prefer a balance of the two, reporting the news in a relatively accurate manner, but pushing more important news items aside so that the front page tells us all about Jerry Seinfeld’s new zillion-dollar home.

Public figures are well aware of this media trend, and will often use it to highlight their mediocre aspects, while downplaying the skeletons in their closets. A good example of this is the recent debate between President Bush and Senator John Kerry’s service during the Vietnam War. The two politicians gladly argued about war medals and who did what 30 years ago, because neither has much of a clue on how to lead this nation. They certainly have no easy solution as to how to gracefully bow out of the occupation of Iraq. So, why not argue about Vietnam, as long as it stalls time until Election Day?

There could be many reasons why Dan Rather failed to thoroughly check his sources when reporting about the memos of President Bush’s service in the National Guard. Maybe he hates George Bush; maybe he does sloppy work and this time he was caught. But this writer has a third theory; perhaps the network heads were pushing for better ratings. Perhaps Rather felt so much pressure to find a hot story he didn’t do his homework because he wanted those memos to be authentic. Maybe he just wanted the glory of reporting a story that would keep America on the edge of their seats.

Perhaps it is the same reason so many of Jason Blair’s stories in the New York Times were so fascinating and at the same time, so fictional. There’s no condoning this behavior; I’m simply stating that I can understand why they did what they did. When scandals like this break, the news industry is quick to shake fingers at the guilty party, but never willing to question why the facts were fudged.

I have worked as an editor and a reporter for small newspapers for the last four years. In most cases, editors at these publications do not sensationalize news in any way. The end result is that the average American looks at these stories and considers them boring. A proofreader at one of my old jobs once told me her job was so tough because she had to read all the “boring stories” written by me and my colleagues. At first, I was insulted, but then I realized she made sense.

Reality can be boring. Local, regional and even international events can sometimes be terribly boring. When you see reality shows on TV, the show is basically four weeks of footage squeezed into an hour. How do the show’s producers accomplish this? It’s really rather simple - they edit out the 80 to 90 percent of the footage that is just plain boring. If my articles are sometimes not as exciting as a celebrity wedding/divorce, a slutty pop star or a gory accident or massacre, then maybe I’m doing my job as a journalist. Just because the truth may not be captivating and exciting all the time doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be told.

I’ve had editors hand me back my articles and tell me to “punch it up;” that it was too dull. I was encouraged to look for the most interesting aspect of that story and expand upon it, even if that meant crucial facts would be cut out in the process.

I hope this explanation isn’t misinterpreted as condoning these unethical practices. Ratings and newsstand sales shouldn’t be an excuse to bend the basic rules of reporting. Thankfully there are watchdog organizations like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org), that call out media outlets who get the news wrong because the truth wasn’t entertaining enough, or because they were all in a mad rush to “scoop” their competition. Thankfully, there are a few media outlets and journalists out there who will report the news as it is, even at the risk of being considered boring.

Maybe it’s just because I live in New York City, but Americans seem to love to complain about the quality of their news. They almost expect reporters and newscasters to lie just a little as they report the news. Americans say they want better journalism, but if that was even remotely true they wouldn’t buy copies of sensationalistic publications like the New York Post, the Enquirer or (I hate to admit it) the New York Daily News by the millions or spend so much time watching Fox News or CNN.

The news industry isn’t an evil force bent on dumbing down the masses; it’s driven by consumer demand like any other business. It only produces these kinds of stories because its sales numbers and Nielsen ratings are proof positive that this is what consumers enjoy. You want fairer, more accurate news? Then stop buying the publications you know are putting out this stuff. Stop watching those news shows, daily broadcasts and 24-hour news channels you know are choosing style over substance. Change the demand, and you will change the supply.