Priorities and Distractions: Better Questions and Better Answers in Civic Debate

Bill Moyers points this out with a consistency that ought to be attracting more attention:  We are more often entertained than informed.  There’s really nothing new about this, from the broadsheets of the 18th century to the tabloids of today there’s been inflammatory, controversial, and downright bogus communications masquerading as news.   But scale does matter, and when the 4th Estate does a better job of reporting on personalities than policies our civic discussion is diminished.

As much as we might decry the level and content of public debate, simply blaming the “media” is altogether too simple.  We bear some responsibility for the content we receive.

If we are more interested in titillating trivia about the personal lives of celebrities than we are in the ramifications of Basel III, then we will get Paris, Kim, and Lindsay.  If we are more intrigued  by the sexually charged adventures of Foley, Craig, Vitter, Ensign, Lee, and Weiner than we are about what is necessary to prevent some of the major effects of global climate change, then we will get what we asked for.  Media is, after all is said and done, a commercial enterprise.

If we are content to sit about grousing about the lack of content in media broadcasts and publications, then there is no reason to expect those outlets to provide us with more information and less entertainment.

Every major broadcaster has contact information available on its website.  How often do we tell them that we’d be more likely to stay tuned or to purchase the publication IF they would provide more content on policy questions in which we are interested?  How often do we consider the following notions?

#1.  Reporters, anchors, and other members of the media are human.  This, of course, means that they are just as subject to herd mentality as the rest of us. It wasn’t any accident that people headed for the hills during the infamous Orson Welles production of “The War of the Worlds” on October 30, 1938.  It sounded real, and because remote location reporting was a rather new phenomena at the time, it sounded legitimate.  However, just because one camp out in front of a major trial venue doesn’t necessarily mean that one should.   The lesson is, or ought to be, that merely because a singular element of the population is intrigued by a story that all the information outlets should be concentrated upon it.

If “everyone” (meaning every person with whom we come in contact) is talking about “the Deficit.” Then it must be the most important issue? Correct?  Perhaps, and perhaps not.  What is often lost in the publication and public consumption of news is that media means to make a profit selling information on a daily basis — which can distort the actual significance of the issues in question.

We should be careful not to conflate a hot topic with a crucial issue.  The federal deficit, for example, is a hot topic; it may or may not be a crucial issue.  The deficit is crucial if you are a Wall Street banker, if you are a Main Street construction worker then employment may very well be a  more crucial subject.

#2. Being uninformed is a personal choice.  Much ink has been expended over low-information, moderate-information, and high-information voters.  The ink expenditure ranges from scholarly tracts to political advisories.  It seems that the low-information gatherers attach more weight to quantity — for example, how often do they hear or get an e-mail telling them that “The President Was Sworn In On A Koran.”  Tell them these stories often enough and they will attach some meaning to the target getting “defensive” about the subject.  The misinformation and disinformation will be acknowledged as plausible merely because of its amount not its weight.   So, if every single day a right wing talk show host inveighs against the deficit or a personality in the news, then credence is attached to such self-selected or often insubstantial stories.  We are reflection of our own choices.

This is not to argue that the commercial media couldn’t do a better job of prioritizing its output.  Remember — they are commercial enterprises and money related to circulation, ratings, and advertising sales matters.  Most major media outlets do try to cover most of the bases.   That they don’t cover some with more expertise may be a matter of personnel, staffing, time, editorial direction, and resources.  These constraints lead to more problems in the Information Age.

#3.  Problem One: Background information.  We can often discern some background information issues in the exchanges between anchors and reporters.  Anchor A asks Reporter B about major topics in the House Appropriations Committee.  Let’s assume for the sake of this hypothetical situation Reporter B is far more informed about the shape of legislation than the Anchor, but it is the Anchor who will shape the reporting by determining the questions to be asked.  If Anchor A asks Reporter B “What is being done about the federal debt?” Then, we can assume that this generalization will swamp specific information Reporter B has at hand about attempts by some members of Congress to cut funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the WIC program, or Net Neutrality. Further, the implications of these cuts will be perceived as part of generally “cutting the deficit” and not as fully understood as to the impact these specific cuts might have on average Americans.

#4. Problem Two:  The Significance Game.  The answers we get depend on the questions we ask.  If the individual asking the questions is enthralled by the political ramifications of legislation, then a question might be phrased: “What will the cuts to CFTC or WIC mean for Party X in the next election?”  This is a mildly interesting inquiry, but it would be far more significant if the expert or reporter were asked: “What will cuts to CFTC funding do to the enforcement of regulations designed to prevent future events such as the credit meltdown we experienced in 2007-2008?  What impact will cuts in WIC funding have on child nutrition in the United States?  If all we want is Politics then the generalized questions will suffice.  If what we want is more information about policy development then we need to respectfully request that anchors and editors ask better questions.

If we allow ourselves to be entertained, or merely reinforced, then the Simon & Garfunkle lyrics may take the day: “I get all the news I need on the weather report.”