William Moloney 當媒體放棄客觀性而傾向於敘事時，危險無處不在

William Moloney 當媒體放棄客觀性而傾向於敘事時，危險無處不在

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3926539-dangers-abound-when-media-abandon-objectivity-in-favor-of-a-narrative/

作者：威廉·莫洛尼，觀點撰稿人 - 04/04/23

當長期擔任哥倫比亞廣播公司晚間新聞主播的沃爾特·克朗凱特（1962 年至 1981 年在播）在當時的民意調查中被描述為“美國最值得信賴的人”時，蓋洛普組織開始調查公眾對新聞媒體的態度，發現絕大多數受訪者相信記者能夠“全麵、準確和公正地”報道新聞。1976 年，這一支持率達到了曆史最高水平，達到 72%。

然而，在此後的幾十年裏，越來越多的美國人不再相信他們可以信任媒體。到 2015 年，對第四等級的認可度已降至 40%，而蓋洛普在 2022 年 9 月進行最新調查時，這一數字已降至 34%——其中 28% 的人表示他們“不太信任”媒體，38% 的人表示他們“完全不信任”。

公眾信任度急劇下降的原因並不難發現。隨著時間的推移，大多數報道和塑造新聞的人似乎不再相信“客觀性”應該成為他們行業的目標，或者蓋洛普“全麵、準確和公平”報道新聞的標準有任何用處。

這一明顯的新聞使命新概念的一個典型例子可以在 2022 年 1 月的一份報告“超越客觀性”中找到，該報告由前華盛頓郵報編輯 Leonard Downie 和前 CBS 新聞總裁 Andrew Heyward 撰寫。兩人目前都是亞利桑那州立大學的新聞學教授。

他們的報告基於對“新聞領袖、記者和其他專家”的數十次采訪，一開始就指出了他們的核心前提，即新聞業的客觀性已經“過時”。他們後來將其描述為“失去意義的新聞概念”。他們的受訪者幾乎一致讚同這一觀點。舊金山紀事報的主編就是一個典型的例子，他告訴作者，年輕記者的共識是：“我們全都錯了。我們就是問題所在。客觀性必須消失。”在報告的結論中，唐尼和海沃德呼籲對新聞業進行新的審視，“用更切合實際的新聞標準取代過時的客觀性。”

那麽，這種新媒體格局會是什麽樣子，它可能帶來什麽危險？大多數記者是否已經不再是冷靜的事實收集者，不再試圖報道政治故事的各個方麵，同時讓這些事實成為他們結論的主要決定因素？他們是否反而將自己視為堅定的活動家，不追求客觀事實，而是追求一種預先設定的“敘事”，以推進特定的議程，他們認為這種議程不僅在新聞上是正確的，而且在道德上是優越的？那些相信這一點的人是否也認為那些支持不同觀點的人不是不稱職的記者，而是道德低下的人和潛在危險的錯誤信息的傳播者？

任何人，哪怕隻是隨意地在電視上瀏覽網絡和有線新聞，或者對比一下《紐約時報》和《紐約郵報》、《華盛頓郵報》和《華盛頓時報》等主流媒體巨頭的觀點，都能看出這些偏見並沒有什麽秘密可言。CNN 和 MSNBC 是毫無歉意的左翼，就像福克斯新聞是右翼一樣。然而，許多新聞媒體似乎並沒有達到健康的平衡，反而反映了唐尼和海沃德在《超越客觀性》中所宣揚的教義。

從圍繞穀歌、Facebook、Twitter 和 TikTok 等互聯網平台的激烈爭議中，我們很容易看出這個勇敢的新新聞世界中隱含的深刻危險。他們參與了利益相關方（不祥地包括我們自己的政府）的努力，利用它們來壓製、“取消”甚至懲罰那些持有不受歡迎觀點的人，這令人深感不安。對憲法基石第一修正案的威脅太明顯了，無需重申。

對一些人來說，一個容忍和執行一種政治觀點或敘事的受控媒體環境的幽靈令人擔憂；對另一些人來說，這個想法本身就等同於不切實際的恐嚇。盡管如此，驚人的技術進步危險地賦予了中國和俄羅斯等極權主義國家增強控製本國人民的能力，這應該讓那些說喬治·奧威爾的經典小說《1984》與這一代人無關的人停下來思考。那些堅持認為“這不可能發生在這裏”的人應該謹慎行事。

威廉·莫洛尼是科羅拉多基督教大學百年研究所的高級研究員，曾在牛津大學和倫敦大學學習，並獲得哈佛大學博士學位。他曾擔任科羅拉多州教育專員。

Dangers abound when media abandon objectivity in favor of a narrative

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3926539-dangers-abound-when-media-abandon-objectivity-in-favor-of-a-narrative/

BY WILLIAM MOLONEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 04/04/23

When longtime CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite, on-air from 1962 to 1981, was described in a contemporary poll as “the most trusted man in America,” the Gallup organization began surveying public attitudes toward the news media and found that a large majority of respondents trusted journalists to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly.” In 1976, that approval reached an all-time high of 72 percent.

In the decades since, however, an increasing number of Americans have stopped believing that they can trust the press. By 2015, approval of the Fourth Estate had dropped to 40 percent, and when Gallup did its most recent survey in September 2022, it had fallen to 34 percent — with 28 percent saying they had “not very much trust” in the media and 38 percent saying they had “none at all.

 

The reason for this precipitous decline in public trust is not hard to discover. Over time, a preponderance of those who report and shape the news appear to have ceased believing that “objectivity” should even be a goal of their industry or that the Gallup metric of reporting the news “fully, accurately and fairly” has any utility whatsoever.

A prime example of this apparent new conception of the journalistic mission can be found in a January 2022 report, “Beyond Objectivity,” written by former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward. Both are currently professors of journalism at Arizona State University.

Their report, based on dozens of interviews with “news leaders, journalists and other experts,” states at the outset their central premise that objectivity in journalism is “outmoded.” They later describe it as a “journalistic concept that has lost its relevance.” Their interviewees almost uniformly endorse this viewpoint. Quite typical is the editor-in-chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, who told the authors that a consensus among younger journalists is, “We got it all wrong. We are the problem. Objectivity has got to go.” In their report’s conclusion, Downie and Heyward call for a fresh vision of journalism that “replaces outmoded objectivity with a more relevant articulation of journalistic standards.”

So, what might this new media landscape look like and what dangers might it entail? Have most journalists ceased to be dispassionate gatherers of facts who seek to cover all aspects of a political story while allowing those facts to be the chief determinants of their conclusions? Do they instead see themselves as committed activists, serving not objective truth but a preordained “narrative” that advances a specific agenda, which they view not just as journalistically correct but morally superior? And do those who believe this also see those who espouse different views not as inadequate journalists but as moral inferiors and purveyors of potentially dangerous misinformation?

Anyone who even casually channel-surfs network and cable news on television or contrasts the viewpoints of, say, mainstream media giants such as the New York Times and the New York Post, or the Washington Post and the Washington Times, can see there is nothing clandestine about these biases. CNN and MSNBC are as unapologetically left-wing as Fox News is right-wing. Yet, far from adding up to a healthy balance, many news outlets seem to reflect the doctrines espoused by Downie and Heyward in “Beyond Objectivity.”

The profound dangers implicit in this brave new journalistic world are readily seen in the swirling controversies surrounding internet platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and TikTok. Their involvement in the efforts of interested parties — ominously including our own government — to use them to suppress, “cancel” or even punish those with viewpoints deemed to be undesirable is deeply troubling. The threat to the constitutional cornerstone that is the First Amendment is too obvious to need restatement.

To some, the specter of a controlled media environment that tolerates and enforces just one political viewpoint or narrative is alarming; to others, the very idea amounts to unrealistic fearmongering. Nonetheless, the striking technological advances that have dangerously empowered totalitarian states such as China and Russia to enhance their capacities to control their own people should give pause to those who say George Orwell’s classic novel, “1984,” has no relevance to this generation. Caution should be advised to those who would insist, “It couldn’t happen here.”

William Moloney is a senior fellow at Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute, who has studied at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University. He is a former Colorado Commissioner of Education.