Journalism - Something has gone wrong?
Lee Fang is a US investigative journalist. At the height of the George Floyd protests, he dared to tweet an interview with a black man expressing concern about black-on-black crimes. Immediately, Lee's outraged colleagues at The Intercept judged him guilty of 'thought crimes'. Then, they extracted a written apology and self-criticism. Mao's Red Guards would be proud.
Lee's experience is telling because activist journalists are hi-jacking newsrooms and won't tolerate dissenting voices. The Tom Cotton saga illustrates the point. A serving US senator, Cotton wrote an Op-Ed piece for The New York Times in June entitled "Send in the Troops". Young staff members at the paper objected under the guise of health and safety. They asserted Cotton's views put journalists at risk, although their motivation was more likely to suppress Cotton's opinions.
In response, The New York Times implemented changes, which means its editorial line is now in the hands of activists. Along the way, senior staff at the paper have undertaken self-denunciation sessions. Thus, the Marxist cultural revolution arrived in the US media.
I realised an odd phenomenon in 2019 at the height of Hong Kong's social unrest. Much of the coverage in the Western press and on international TV was out of kilter with events on the ground. In particular, the extreme violence of the protesters was ignored or downplayed. However, any action by the police drew considerable attention and a tone of accusation. The entire sequence of incidents was often not mentioned, giving the impression that police officers acted unprovoked.
As an example, our local channel RTHK spun one story to portray the police as ruining Christmas by only giving passing mention to the actions of militants.
It's important to note that this is not about lying or fabricating untruths. Instead, the process is more subtle and akin to the tactics used in psyops. Experts in manipulating populations know you can't completely change a person's mind. However, using cherry-picked facts can skew a narrative. Thus, you feed on people's sentiments, stoking them to new heights to push a particular outcome.
It's easy to illustrate. You repeat the message that the protests were peaceful and then only show images of the police using force. Tie that to a few interviews alleging police brutality, and bingo, that is the focus. If you can conjure up a so-called ‘expert', that's even better.
Meanwhile, the injuries to police officers get ignored. RTHK did this on many occasions.
The China Daily newspaper tended to provide a balanced account of incidents. Also, Russia Today didn't fall into the rote Western media reporting. At first, I took these distortions as unique to the context of Hong Kong, with anti-China media twisting the narrative.
Yet, recent events in the U.S. and U.K., described above, suggest this is not isolated to Hong Kong. Well-established principles are breaking down across the mainstream media. The emerging picture is of journalism losing its way as the entire medium fractures.
In the process, the activists challenge the old-guard liberals and free-speech journalists, who are fighting a rear-guard action. This all came into sharp focus recently as COVID-19 and the BLM movement acted as catalysts to widen existing fault lines that had evolved over decades. These fractures are shaking the foundations of the media business and have consequences for how people access truth. As with all aspects of life in the postmodern world, truth is under threat.
This is alarming. To what extent is unbalanced media coverage fueling society's divisions? Is it driving polarisation and violence?
As a kid growing up in the 1960s/70s in the UK, I found the BBC news to be a staple and revered. We trusted that Richard Baker and Angela Rippon spoke the truth to us. Rarely would anyone challenge the BBC. That is no longer the case, with its very existence in doubt, given many questions over its evident bias in recent years.
We know a sea change occurs as decentralised, networked reporting emerges, much of it on social media. Along the way, trust in traditional media outlets dissipates.
Thus, as the old media crumbles in this transition period, its replacement is yet to form or be credible — if it ever will. And this is dangerous because we need clarity in a complex world. Unfortunately, the institutions that helped provide that clarity are fast fading. We have compromised universities, discredited experts and now a faltering media.
Part of the problem is that the business models that sustained the old media are no longer viable. This week, Next Digital, which publishes the Apple Daily, reported a full-year loss of US$53 million. In the U.K., The Guardian newspaper is begging for donations because it offers ‘factual information and analysis that has authority and integrity.’ That one makes me laugh.
Meanwhile, there is an ongoing discussion about whether ‘go woke, go broke’ or the reverse ‘go broke, go woke’ is occurring. The former has readers driven away by biased coverage. In the latter, the old-school journalists leave to expose newspapers to the activist reporters. I suspect a bit of both. Also, you can't blame young people for seizing the opportunity to drive change. Nothing is new about this; as passionate and full of vim kids, they want to make a difference.
Nevertheless, there is some agreement that in the Western media, the old-school types sought balance and fairness in reporting events. They adopted a professional approach anchored in evidence and reliable facts. On the other hand, the activists arrive in newsrooms with a campaigning stance and a willingness to suppress voices they don't believe should be heard. Granted, this is an oversimplification, yet it frames the trend.
Of course, journalists have always had a bias or an angle, and that's true to an extent. But, these days, when a group of people seize control of a newsroom to dictate the editorial line, you must agree the situation has escalated.
Several notable newsroom rebellions in the U.S. have been documented, with young reporters sanctioning their seniors. Anecdotal evidence suggests that RTHK experienced a similar situation until management re-asserted control.
Part of the broader challenge is that people exercise power through social media that is disproportionate to the merits of their reasoning. What astonishes me is that these threats to free speech do not come from governments. They come from a woke generation seeking to shut down voices. There is no debate or listening—instead, there is intimidation, exclusion, and shut-down. A howling illiberal mob at Oxford University greeted moderate old-school journalist Peter Hitchens. He needed a police escort to exit the campus.
People enacted the same blind adherence to dogma on Hong Kong's streets during the anti-extradition protests. A few brave souls prepared to stand their ground against the mob were burnt, stoned or beaten unconscious. In response, so-called pro-democracy politicians and their supporters in the West turned a blind eye to these horrors. Then, the violence on their streets prompted immediate condemnation without a hint of hypocrisy.
In our complex world, we are running through a dense forest with our eyesight failing. We need a clear path before a collision with something substantial is inevitable, with awful consequences. We first need clarity, open debate, all voices heard, and less bile for holding different views to get through this transition. We may get there, although the omens could be more favourable. So, in the meantime, the grown-ups need to start taking charge in newsrooms.
June 2020
Lee's experience is telling because activist journalists are hi-jacking newsrooms and won't tolerate dissenting voices. The Tom Cotton saga illustrates the point. A serving US senator, Cotton wrote an Op-Ed piece for The New York Times in June entitled "Send in the Troops". Young staff members at the paper objected under the guise of health and safety. They asserted Cotton's views put journalists at risk, although their motivation was more likely to suppress Cotton's opinions.
In response, The New York Times implemented changes, which means its editorial line is now in the hands of activists. Along the way, senior staff at the paper have undertaken self-denunciation sessions. Thus, the Marxist cultural revolution arrived in the US media.
I realised an odd phenomenon in 2019 at the height of Hong Kong's social unrest. Much of the coverage in the Western press and on international TV was out of kilter with events on the ground. In particular, the extreme violence of the protesters was ignored or downplayed. However, any action by the police drew considerable attention and a tone of accusation. The entire sequence of incidents was often not mentioned, giving the impression that police officers acted unprovoked.
As an example, our local channel RTHK spun one story to portray the police as ruining Christmas by only giving passing mention to the actions of militants.
It's important to note that this is not about lying or fabricating untruths. Instead, the process is more subtle and akin to the tactics used in psyops. Experts in manipulating populations know you can't completely change a person's mind. However, using cherry-picked facts can skew a narrative. Thus, you feed on people's sentiments, stoking them to new heights to push a particular outcome.
It's easy to illustrate. You repeat the message that the protests were peaceful and then only show images of the police using force. Tie that to a few interviews alleging police brutality, and bingo, that is the focus. If you can conjure up a so-called ‘expert', that's even better.
Meanwhile, the injuries to police officers get ignored. RTHK did this on many occasions.
The China Daily newspaper tended to provide a balanced account of incidents. Also, Russia Today didn't fall into the rote Western media reporting. At first, I took these distortions as unique to the context of Hong Kong, with anti-China media twisting the narrative.
Yet, recent events in the U.S. and U.K., described above, suggest this is not isolated to Hong Kong. Well-established principles are breaking down across the mainstream media. The emerging picture is of journalism losing its way as the entire medium fractures.
In the process, the activists challenge the old-guard liberals and free-speech journalists, who are fighting a rear-guard action. This all came into sharp focus recently as COVID-19 and the BLM movement acted as catalysts to widen existing fault lines that had evolved over decades. These fractures are shaking the foundations of the media business and have consequences for how people access truth. As with all aspects of life in the postmodern world, truth is under threat.
This is alarming. To what extent is unbalanced media coverage fueling society's divisions? Is it driving polarisation and violence?
As a kid growing up in the 1960s/70s in the UK, I found the BBC news to be a staple and revered. We trusted that Richard Baker and Angela Rippon spoke the truth to us. Rarely would anyone challenge the BBC. That is no longer the case, with its very existence in doubt, given many questions over its evident bias in recent years.
We know a sea change occurs as decentralised, networked reporting emerges, much of it on social media. Along the way, trust in traditional media outlets dissipates.
Thus, as the old media crumbles in this transition period, its replacement is yet to form or be credible — if it ever will. And this is dangerous because we need clarity in a complex world. Unfortunately, the institutions that helped provide that clarity are fast fading. We have compromised universities, discredited experts and now a faltering media.
Part of the problem is that the business models that sustained the old media are no longer viable. This week, Next Digital, which publishes the Apple Daily, reported a full-year loss of US$53 million. In the U.K., The Guardian newspaper is begging for donations because it offers ‘factual information and analysis that has authority and integrity.’ That one makes me laugh.
Meanwhile, there is an ongoing discussion about whether ‘go woke, go broke’ or the reverse ‘go broke, go woke’ is occurring. The former has readers driven away by biased coverage. In the latter, the old-school journalists leave to expose newspapers to the activist reporters. I suspect a bit of both. Also, you can't blame young people for seizing the opportunity to drive change. Nothing is new about this; as passionate and full of vim kids, they want to make a difference.
Nevertheless, there is some agreement that in the Western media, the old-school types sought balance and fairness in reporting events. They adopted a professional approach anchored in evidence and reliable facts. On the other hand, the activists arrive in newsrooms with a campaigning stance and a willingness to suppress voices they don't believe should be heard. Granted, this is an oversimplification, yet it frames the trend.
Of course, journalists have always had a bias or an angle, and that's true to an extent. But, these days, when a group of people seize control of a newsroom to dictate the editorial line, you must agree the situation has escalated.
Several notable newsroom rebellions in the U.S. have been documented, with young reporters sanctioning their seniors. Anecdotal evidence suggests that RTHK experienced a similar situation until management re-asserted control.
Part of the broader challenge is that people exercise power through social media that is disproportionate to the merits of their reasoning. What astonishes me is that these threats to free speech do not come from governments. They come from a woke generation seeking to shut down voices. There is no debate or listening—instead, there is intimidation, exclusion, and shut-down. A howling illiberal mob at Oxford University greeted moderate old-school journalist Peter Hitchens. He needed a police escort to exit the campus.
People enacted the same blind adherence to dogma on Hong Kong's streets during the anti-extradition protests. A few brave souls prepared to stand their ground against the mob were burnt, stoned or beaten unconscious. In response, so-called pro-democracy politicians and their supporters in the West turned a blind eye to these horrors. Then, the violence on their streets prompted immediate condemnation without a hint of hypocrisy.
In our complex world, we are running through a dense forest with our eyesight failing. We need a clear path before a collision with something substantial is inevitable, with awful consequences. We first need clarity, open debate, all voices heard, and less bile for holding different views to get through this transition. We may get there, although the omens could be more favourable. So, in the meantime, the grown-ups need to start taking charge in newsrooms.
June 2020
Copyright © 2015