December 1988
EMEDIA
Who's Watching the Watchers?
By Caroline Miller,
Commissioner
Multnomah
County,
Oregon
I B u ring my several years of
JLZ service to this community,
I have become aware of the need for
a fairness doctrine with regard to the
media, one which is given not only lip
service, but teeth as well. Accounta
bility, in exchange for the broad pro
tection afforded the industry under the
Constitution, is what the public deserves.
After all, if democracy requires an
informed public, then citizens have a
right to expect not only facts but
fairness in the reporting of those facts.
By fairness I do not mean
objectivity. The notion that human
beings-fraught with emotions and
limited by their perceptions-can be
objective is too much to ask. We can,
however, call for balanced reporting
and for ethical practices which require
journalists to give equal voice to ideas
both in and out of the mainstream.
Anything less is censorship.
The notion of media as censor
may at first seem strange, but it is true.
Someone much wiser than I once
By downplaying or
suppressing certain informa
tion, the media acts, not as
guardians of the public’s
right to know, but as
manipulators o f public
opinion.
remarked that the media does not hold
up a mirror to life; it does not unflinch
ingly reflect the world. Rather, it
chooses from day-to-day events those
issues it deems important and lets the
rest go by. That decision to omit infor
mation is a form of censorship. During
the recent presidential election, for
example, we were given tedious details
about the campaigns but were left to
hunger for news from abroad. Had
famine disappeared from Ethiopia? Was
India gaining on its population
problems? These things we were not
allowed to know.
Understandably, some selection
must take place. We could neither carry
home nor read a daily containing
detailed accounts of every event taking
place on the planet. The point being
made is that what we know, when we
know it and how much we know is
largely a matter of choice and because
information has so much to do with
the way we think about our world, we
should know who is doing the choosing
and why
The why fortunately, is easy.
Choices are made in accordance with
what will sell. The media, after all, is a
collection of information industries
dedicated to the purpose of making
profit. They exist in a highly competitive
environment where “cannibalism" is
rampant, so much so that only 3% of
the cities in the United States still have
more than one daily paper, excluding
U.S. World Today. Competition to
dominate the air waves is equally fierce.
Little wonder then, that such a
competitive environment is a breeding
ground for questionable practices which,
in turn, cry out for correction. Curtis
MacDougal, in his book, The Press
and Its Problems exposes the extent to
which ethics may be breached in the
drive to be first with a story.
Reporters may pose as detectives,
coroner’s assistants or other public or
semipublic officials to gain access to
places from which they would other
wise be barred, and to persuade news
sources to talk. They may steal photo
graphs, peek through windows, climb
fire escapes to effect entrances into
apartments, waylay servants, relatives
and friends, and virtually besiege the
dwelling of someone reluctant to be
interviewed, (published, William C.
Brown, Co. 1965, p. 338.)
Unfortunately, these excesses,
by-products of the need to stay ahead,
have become so intense that frequently
what passes for news is merely novelty.
Even the most trivial detail can make
headlines. A few years ago, a banner
reported that an audit of one govern
ment revealed a three dollar shortage
in its petty cash. Frankly, when I read
the story, I felt heartened. Given the
hundreds-of-thousands of dollars the
agency handles in any given year,
a three dollar shortfall seemed petty
indeed; yet the tone of the article
was otherwise.
The industry has so
vehemently opposed
outside interference,
and has so success
fully identified its
interests with the
protections of the
First Amendment,
that even the courts
seems powerless.
Closer to home, my own career in
public life is dotted with examples of
the media's fascination with trivial
pursuit. More ink has been shed on
my personal attributes, my preference
for pink, or the fact that I once sat on
the floor to avoid a pesky photographer,
than on any good or ill I have done in
my nine years of political office. Of
course, my experience pales compared
to that of candidates for national office.
There was much made in the news,
for example, about the military record,
or lack of it, of Senator Dan Quayle.
Yet of the 203 representatives and
senators who were of draft age during
the Vietnam War, 126 did not serve. Of
that 126, 30 joined the National Guard
or Reserves.1 Apparently, the path
Senator Quayle took for military service
was well trod by others; yet little was
made of it.
(continued next page)
1. David Keim, “ The Power Network Goes Quayle Shooting," The Christian Century. Aug Sept.
1988, p. 756.