Editorial Reflections

How do our faith and values impact our media consumption?

 

What is our media diet in this campaign season? What headlines grab our eyes? What outlandish, racist lies will media repeat? What gets a candidate's name mentioned repeatedly?

Starting in journalism in the 1960s, I understood "mass" media had a responsibility to be "objective" and give equal time to candidates. Reporters were to ask questions to elicit values, ideas and policies, not "gotcha" questions to show how astute the reporter is by trapping the interviewee.

Today most media build a candidate's celebrity (popularity) by quoting outlandish comments of those who create chaos as they seek free, frequent coverage. Whose name is most often in headlines each day. I counted one source one day and it was 10 to 3. The 2024 campaign began just after the 2020 election with one candidate running for office four years. The other did the job of President, working behind the scenes, negotiating bipartisan solutions—hardly headline grabbing.

One would think fact-checking would discredit a candidate, but as media crowd their space with one candidate's bizarre comments, many forget their responsibility to give equal time for the other candidate. The idea that the current administration has done little comes from limited media coverage the day-to-day work of the person in office.

Why are so many media gullible? Do they really gain ratings and income by focusing on conflict, violence, sex, celebrity, popularity, the unusual, the outrageous? Those definitions of news make the unusual usual but may not lure the wise or numb to click at the bait.

Do media know they are falling into age-old traps, doing the bidding of propagandists?

It matters if media continually repeat racism, lies and conspiracy theories, because keeping a candidate in the spotlight—whatever the content—might sway the election. It's how dictators can "win."

Merriam Webster defines propaganda as "spreading ideas, information or rumor  to help or injure an institution, a cause or a person."

Thesaurus synonyms for propaganda are "disinformation, hype, indoctrination and publicity." It's communication to manipulate opinions to influence.

There are seven propaganda techniques.

• Name-calling: Do media repeat slurs or ignore them to avoid stereotypes?

• Glittering generalities: Do media expect one candidate to discuss specific policies but repeat the other's generalities that stoke fear and prejudice?

• Transfer: Do media quote one candidate blaming the other for doing what they, in fact, are doing to deflect attention from their misdeeds?

• Testimonial: Who do media consider credible to endorse a candidate?

• Plain-folk: Do media not question when a billionaire claims more understanding of workers than the opponent?

• Card-stacking: Do media just repeat a candidate's claims to be the best or greatest in history?

• Bandwagon: Do media report elections as popularity contests, as if polls of a few unidentified people predict the outcome? Are elections popularity contests?

As a young journalist, my choice was to work for a major media outlet, driven by a limited definition of news. Journalists want to hold jobs, so they often play by the rules of publishers and producers. Even though there are faces of women and people of color among journalists, the news criteria and content are still predominantly set by a few media owners out for profits.

"Divide and conquer" is the adage for the power hungry. Do we just gobble up the diet media set before us? If we're queasy or numb, we can just not bite (click) on the sensational online bait.

Some food for thought: just as we are what we eat, we are what we read, see, hear, follow and believe.

How do we let our faith guide our media diet and consumption?

Mary Stamp - Editor