The media's odd obsession with manufacturing debate

By: Rob
Published On: 12/7/2007 12:49:54 AM

Through the haze of the recent dust up on the Washington Post's article about rumors of Barack Obama's faith, one thing became clear.  The press sure does love a horse race.  You know, the battle royale between heavyweights.  They love it in campaigns, they love it in Hollywood, they love it business, they love it in sports.    Everything that can be framed as a battle or a feud or a, well, horse race will be stated in a way to fit this A v. B narrative.

And where they don't have that duke 'em out battle royale between a small group of people -- preferably two -- they'll invent it.

What the Obama story showed was that this "reporting a horse race" mentality is so important, it's needed in framing political debate  as well.  So, when writing a story about false and long debunked rumors about Obama being a Muslim, the Post failed to once note that those rumors were false and long debunked.  Journalistic incompetence?  Perhaps.  Or perhaps it's more interesting and appealing to write a story about competing stories.  A horse race, if you will, between Obama being a Christian and Obama being a Muslim.  When reporting on competing realities, it's not as interesting, the theory goes, if one of those rumors was exposed as a lie to begin with.
And this sort of style of journalism pervades even into reporting about important issues themselves.  The media seeks to create a grand debate where one doesn't exist.  For example, in this LA Times article, the reporter twists math to create his horse race:

One-third of Americans want to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency room healthcare, to illegal immigrants, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Still, in a sign of ambivalence among voters about the emotionally charged issue, a strong bipartisan majority -- 60% -- favors allowing illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements.

Did you see what she did there?  She invented an "ambivalence."  Two-thirds of Americans are not against denying all social services to immigrants (66%) -- and, looking deeper at the survey, 60% answered that they'd allow at least one of the listed social services for illegal immigrants -- but that first paragraph is phrased in a way that creates a juxtaposition with the second paragraph.  Rather than report that a strong majority was against the "give 'em nothing" position and in favor of allowing a form of social services to illegal immigrants, in addition to being for the path to citizenship, the writer went out of her way to invent a horse race.  Much more interesting for the reader to think American's are torn about immigration, than to think that most of us think the same way.

And so it goes -- Google and Microsoft are going at it.  A pair of starlets hate each other.  Yankees v. Red Sox.  And, beliefs and ideas that unite most Americans are spliced and diced in a way to create an evenly matched battle.  Nobody wants to read that everyone shares the same values -- it's the high-pitched debates that sell copy.


Comments