The Death of 'He Said, She Said' Journalism

[Mme. Defarge]

"Last Saturday, The New York Times published an extraordinary story. What made the story extraordinary wasn’t the event the Times covered. What made it extraordinary was the way the Times covered it.

On its front page, top right—the most precious space in American print journalism—the Times wrote about Friday’s press conference in which Donald Trump declared that a) he now believed Barack Obama was a US citizen, b) he deserved credit for having established that fact despite rumors to the contrary and c) Hillary Clinton was to blame for the rumors. Traditionally, when a political candidate assembles facts so as to aggrandize himself and belittle his opponent, “objective” journalists like those at the Times respond with a “he said, she said” story.

Such stories, according to the NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, follow this formula: “There’s a public dispute. The dispute makes news. No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story … The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.”

For an example of such a story, consider the way the Times covered George W. Bush’s claim, during his campaign against John Kerry, that Saddam Hussein had worked closely with Al Qaeda. “Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein,” noted a Times headline on June 18, 2004. Why were Bush and Cheney raising the subject? Because the day before, the 9/11 Commission had reported that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda did not have a “collaborative relationship.” Nonetheless, the Times reported Bush’s claims and Kerry’s response as equally valid. Bush himself had helped create the Commission to provide an authoritative, nonpartisan account of the events leading up to 9/11. Yet the Times refused to grant its view any more weight than Bush’s own. It refused to render any judgment about what was true."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/the-death-of-he-said-she-said-journalism/500519/

[Maven]

1. "He said, she said" - great way to put it.

Reporters (and more importantly, consumers of news) are waking up to the fact that they can no longer get away with reporting the truth and a lie as two clashing "viewpoints". That is not being objective - that is failing to report the news honestly. You must use judgment as a journalist and weigh the merits of each claim, and the headline should reflect the outcome of that judgment - not merely that there is a 'dispute' between two sides, when one side is pushing a falsehood.

[renate]

8. it's just absurd the way political "reporting" devolved into stenography

Can you imagine how much better our political system would be if politicians were actually fact-checked? It's the most important job of a free press IMO, and with few exceptions they completely bailed on it till last weekend.

[CTyankee]

2. glad to see this. I always remember the Atlantic Magazine as a truthtelling organization way back

when. I think it "manned up" to their responsibility...

[stopbush]

3. I'm not getting my hopes up.

One instance of the NYT doing objective, factual reporting does not a death of he said/she said journalism make.

This is, after all, the paper whose hatred of the Clintons made them a major mputhpiece for the phony Whitewater non-scandal. This is the paper that allowed itself to be used by Dick Cheney to sell the Iraq war, giving front-page coverage to his lies as "reported" by Judith Miller.

A leopard doesn't change its spots.

[librechik]

4. How I wish this would start a trend. Then my J-school degree might mean something

unfortunately the news is no longer journalistic. Their extremely lavish bread and butter depends on pleasing rich assholes with oligarchic ambitions, not on spreading the truth to the electorate, as The Free Press was originally designed. The industry is so heavily weighted against facts after generations of this newstainment lard that they can't survive without it. We used to make media corporations shelter taxes with public service air time. No more.

Reagan started it, but Thank you, Bill Clinton! (1996 Mass Communications Act)

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. Great article. Thanks for sharing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Foolish optimism

Just because one can safely rake Donald Trump over the coals does not mean one can safely do the same to the GOP establishment.

Trump is low-hanging fruit, and fucking with him is relatively free of risk.

[Mme. Defarge]

7. "Jane, you ignorant, misguided slut..."

Many election seasons ago I stopped watching the news on PBS because it was just too galling to watch opinions and spin getting that kind of airtime and going unchallenged. Now the press has actually normalized the old SNL spoof on Point/Counterpoint with Jack and Shana.

[Eleanors38]

9. "I have finished it." We will see if MSM will finish it for tRump, or continue to cover the "issue"

"he said, she said."

My bet is on the former. tRump thinks he can get MSM to continue carrying his slop bucket, and so far it has.