Is Fact Discernible in the Media?

     This second discussion forum focuses our attention on the word “fact” and on if “fact” is indeed the truth.  The United States news and print media have enjoyed an historical reputation as being the “fact-finders” for Americans. Not only have we historically given over the authority of fact-finding to the press, but we also have assumed that the facts they will be finding are truths, and that these truths are immutable. But we need to look a little deeper at what these facts are that they are finding.   Romano suggests that facts are nothing more than metaphors for truth, in which the supposed “fact” is language that describes something about the world rather than describing the world itself (p.64).  So, for Romano, fact is somewhat removed from the immutable world of tangible things, just as writing a poem about an experience of love is somewhat removed from the experience itself. In addition, Romano suggests that how the press disseminates information is much the same process as how we read the information.  The press reports on the “facts” as they see them, but does so from their own cultural or political perspective, what Herman and Chomsky (1988) would call a “filter.”  We, likewise, tend to read or watch news that appeals to our own cultural or political perspectives.  Romano warns us to avoid this kind of biased processing of information and calls for us to proactively seek out sources of information that specifically do not align with our cultural and political perspectives (p.79). Only then can we be assured that the information we gather is indeed fair and balanced. The onus is on us, however, and not on the media to maintain the fairness and the balance. In short, we need to become good consumers of information. I tend to agree with Romano, and, I try to put this principle into practice. Although I lean more to the political right, I refuse to be categorized as such, and, I do not simply read conservative literature or watch conservative news (Fox).  Both the left and the right have commodified the news. I try to be aware of this insight as I seek out information.

            Herman and Chomsky (1988) use the word “propaganda” to describe a process by which media people, who they describe as “frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill” (p.2), find themselves the mouthpieces for a system that politicizes stories based on the special interests of the people who have financial controlling interest in the news corporations. In addition, their model makes a somewhat dated argument that the media has an anti-Communistic bias (p.2). Although I might agree that historically, the American press has been anti-Communistic, it no longer seems to be reacting to the Cold War. This is a portion of their model that needs a bit of updating. The rest of their argument appears sound, and, as I mentioned above, provides a stimulus for me to continue to practice being a good consumer of information.

References

Herman E., & Chomsky N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. New York, NY: Random House.

Romano, C. (1986). Grisly Truth About Bare Facts. In R. K. Manoff & M. Schudson

(Eds.) Reading the news. New York, NY: Pantheon. Retrieved from:

https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_40834_1%26url%3D.

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication: A First Look at Communication (7th ed.).

            Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1991).