☆ A road map for local nonpartisan journalism
Image by PickPik
In today's hyper-polarized postmodern society, is it even possible to avert “partisanship”? And what landmarks should readers be looking for re: responsible journalism? In this Opp Now exclusive, we tackle these questions—and more—with Hoover Institution's preeminent First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh.
Opportunity Now: We're fascinated by the growing local interest in nonpartisan news. Given today's overarching philosophy that there's “no such thing” as objectivity or partisanship, why do you think folks are drawn to sites like ours?
Eugene Volokh: Perfect objectivity is hard to accomplish because there are no perfect people. Sometimes you may think you're being objective, but you're not.
Nevertheless, it's a worthwhile goal to strive for. There are many things that I know I don't know. So when I'm getting information on these topics from some source, I want it to be accurate and fair. I don't want to end up being embarrassed because I repeat what I've heard to others, and somebody says, “But doesn't this misstate the whole situation?” Or, “You've omitted this critical fact.” Nobody wants to be duped—or have to admit they got duped.
Perfect objectivity aside, there's a clear difference between showcasing one side of the story versus both sides (or maybe even a third, fourth, or fifth side.) Of course, there are space and capacity limitations in journalism. But for readers, it's not terribly useful to learn just one side.
ON: So how do you distinguish these types of reporting? What signs do you look for that a publication is doing their due diligence?
EV: It can be hard to determine. The topics I most need objectivity in are those I don't know much about. So I'm relying on others' knowledge.
But there are some questions I can consider. First, do they seem to attempt to cover at least two sides of the issue? Second, do they use rhetorical language that makes me think the author may be blinded by his or her own perspective?
Let's briefly expand on that second question. This is unfortunately not a perfect proxy, partly because people may avoid rhetorical language but still be blinded by their own perspective. Or, they may use rhetorical language for charm and fun while presenting a balanced commentary (even though it might not seem that way at first glance).
ON: We feel our ears burning with this one. Might we add “snark” along with charm and fun? ;-)
EV: Well, snark can be fun, but such rhetorical language can go too far. If a blogger links to something and starts off by saying what fools liberals are, it makes me devalue the whole article. If the author thinks liberals are such fools, perhaps he won't pay enough attention to their arguments. Now, maybe on some points these bloggers are correct—even a stopped clock is right twice a day—but I wouldn't call someone thoughtful who labels his adversaries “fools.”
ON: Returning to the beginning of our conversation, perhaps there's no perfect objectivity. Even in nonpartisan journalism, there's values (for us, the free market philosophy) that inform—and, we think, should inform—editorial choices.
With this in mind, is it still possible to pursue balanced, nonpartisan commentary?
EV: I think publications should approach things by asking: what are the interesting arguments here? This is a posture that seems credible even to people who disagree. And then when framing stories for readers, have an attitude of: here's the issue/question, let's talk about it, and you come to your own conclusion.
A lot of the coverage on Opp Now appears balanced. But in my opinion, there remain opportunities for better presenting both sides. Certain language like “faux fiscal accountability bloc” and even “fearmongering” feel spun to me. After all, one person's fearmongering is another person's wise warning to the public. Maybe we should be afraid of some things.
Overall, publications should signal to readers, “This is a complicated issue with arguments on the other side that may offer value and insight.” For instance, consider homelessness. If I see an article titled “Why Newsom's an idiot on homelessness,” I think, “That's their perspective, but I need to be careful with what I read there.” On the other hand, a headline something closer to “What works on homelessness?” makes me think, “At least I know the author hasn't boxed themselves in.” They aren't saying they definitively know all the answers. They're just presenting what seems to work and not work.
ON: None of us have all the facts; but when we cooperate together and assemble our knowledge, we get closer to better solutions. The free market at work.
EV: And my last suggestion is for websites to present studies with different outcomes/findings, not just ones that align with their viewpoint.
Really, there are many ways to convey the intention of openness and thoughtful analysis (as opposed to ideological condemnation), while still being interesting, not overstated, and not mushy.
For example, a headline that says “The recycling hoax: why we've been lied to for the last 40 years” might actually be true as to some facets of recycling, but leads me to believe they won't offer any reasons why some recycling might be a good idea. But a headline that says “Recycling: does it work, and for what products?” seems open to presenting a more balanced perspective.
And it's still catchy, there's that element of surprise—but it doesn't seem like it was written by an anti-recycling zealot. Just a journalist trying hard to get to the truth of the matter.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.