Four Reasons Why Journalists Should Not Defend Democracy
Originally published on October 7, 2021.
TRANSCRIPT: This is Baffled with David DesRoches, a podcast about journalism, and this episode is called: Four Reasons Why Journalists Should Not Defend Democracy.
Before I get into it, just a reminder that this podcast exists to help journalism regain the public's trust. Trust is the only currency journalists have, and fewer people trust us today than any other time in the past 50 years. I hope to help journalists regain the public's trust in two ways. First, by holding journalists accountable for their mistakes and for their stagnant culture, and also by helping other people understand the reporting process so that they can also hold journalists accountable for their mistakes, instead of getting mad at reporters because of a story they didn't like only because they didn't agree with it.
And I want to start this episode off with a question for you. Can journalists defend democracy and pursue truth at the same time? Can those two things coexist? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it depends. That's what we're going to talk about today, because we see this everywhere these days. The Washington Post slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the clearest example of this idea.
In episode one, I talked about this a little and I want to dive into it a little bit more because while there are many things wrong with this idea, there might be a way we can do it, but that path is going to be a challenge. That's because as a profession, our defense of democracy too often precludes us from seeking the actual, complex truth about a story. Because that truth seems to threaten democracy. If the hard truth is a threat, we tend to temper the truth. That might be a tough pill to swallow, but I think it's far too often the case.
Of course, some journalists are better than others at this, and some do seek truth with no regard to ideology. But a lot of journalists simply do not. We're going to talk more about this later. Pursuing truth and defending democracy simultaneously is also a challenge because each of us has our own definition of what democracy actually is. That is, my definition of democracy is very different from yours, and both of our definitions are probably different from the one that actually exists in the United States of America. Other journalists have other definitions and so on.
Reason 1: We All Define Democracy Differently
And that's also the first reason why journalists should not think of themselves as defenders of democracy; because we all have different ideas of what democracy actually is. And we also don't agree on what democracy could or should be. Simply put, the things that I think are broken and the things that you think are broken might not be the same things. Some of the things I mentioned you might like and others you won't.
There might be things I don't mention that are at the top of your list, or maybe you think American democracy functions perfectly. Now if you are one of those people, please reach out to me. I would love to hear your reasons for that, seriously.
Anyway, we all define democracy in our own way, and each of these different ideas establishes the lens through which we interpret stories. In other words, my personal definition of democracy creates my personal bias. It at least creates much of that bias, especially when covering stories that relate directly to democratic functions, like foreign affairs, politics, or business matters, or elections.
Again, those individualized lenses work to frame each story that each of us produces, according to our definition of democracy. And,, also according to our interpretation of our role as a defender, some of us are aggressively defensive or even offensive. Some of us are more subtle. Some of us are somewhere in between, and yet our stories inevitably influence different audiences to different degrees on the right and left and contribute to polarization.
If my audience agrees with my definition of democracy, they'll probably agree with my story. And if they disagree with my definition and they might not agree with it, people tend to ignore things that contradict their beliefs. This is called confirmation bias, and we all suffer from it. Even when presented with hard factual evidence, people will ignore that evidence if it goes against what they believe.
Sociological experiments have proven this over and over again. A lot of people don't really want facts. They want to believe in something, because that belief gives them connection to other people. I talked about this in episode one as well. It's also why the phenomenon known as groupthink is so dangerous. Our need, as social creatures, often precludes us from engaging with the truth if that truth makes us question our beliefs.
Now the essential difference between the various polarized media organizations is the very thing this podcast is about. They each have different ideas about what democracy could or should actually be, and they don't agree on what's broken, either. Those ideas are the things that manifest as bias in reporting. Now, you could argue that it's about the marketplace of ideas and the best ones float to the top. But I'm not so sure that's the case anymore. Just look at all the misinformation about vaccines or voter fraud in the 2020 elections and the number of people who believe that garbage.
Different ideas about democracy, color how we report stories. That is the core source of bias. A poll by the Pew Research Center in late 2020 revealed that a lot of people think the media is biased. Two-thirds of respondents, in fact. Importantly, they thought that the bias was a manifestation of political beliefs or agendas. That is, they didn't think these biases existed because of poor journalistic practices or because of a financial motive, or because of a lack of resources. To most people polled, the bias came about because the reporter or the news outlet has an agenda, and that's exactly what I'm talking about.
Consider the fundamental difference between MSNBC and Fox News. They have completely different ideas about what's broken in American democracy and their stories focus on what they believe is broken. Rarely are realistic solutions offered, it's always an idea that will rile up their audience and push them onto social media to share their outrage within their own echo chamber.
So, if journalists are to ever be defenders of democracy, they must agree on, No. 1: what is wrong with an American democracy; and No.2 : what can we do to fix it? Until we get to that point? Well, defending democracy should be abandoned as a goal for journalists. All it's doing is deepening our distrust of each other by entrenching us in our pre-established beliefs.
Reason 2: American Democracy Is Broken
This brings us to the second reason why journalists should not defend democracy in the United States: American democracy is broken. Now I hope that most of us can at least agree on this, that it's broken, not just flawed. A Pew Research Center survey from 2019 might have some insight on this. They reported that nearly two-thirds of survey respondents from the U.S. were dissatisfied with the way democracy was working in this country. And democracy here in the United States ranks 25th in the world, behind France and ahead of Portugal, according to the Democracy Index, which was put together by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Twenty-fifth in the world. This means that 24 other countries have better systems than we do. The index is based on 60 indicators that measure things like pluralism, civil liberties and political culture. The US isn't even considered a full democracy, believe it or not. In fact, our democracy has gotten worse almost every year since at least 2006, according to the index.
Again, maybe we'll disagree on what's broken and how to fix it, but it's pretty clear, at least to me, that the system needs an overhaul. All this, of course, begs the really important question and the entire point of this episode: when journalists fashion themselves as defenders of democracy, are they defending their version of democracy, like I talked about before, or our current state of democracy? I already laid out my problems with the former, now let's talk about the latter. If journalists are defending present-day democracy, then they're defending a broken system and they're contributing to the decline of the public’s trust.
Think about how we cover elections. When I was reporting at WNPR, the NPR member station in Hartford, CT, I was put in charge of the 2018 election coverage, there were five candidates for governor that year, and I wanted to profile each one. Now, I wasn't told explicitly not to do that, but there were conversations about whether it was a good idea. There was a pretty clear message from my superiors and my colleagues that I would be wasting my time because three of those five candidates likely didn't have a chance in hell to win.
Why? You know why... they were not members of the two main political parties. And indulge me for a second. If I asked you who the Libertarian and Green Party presidential candidates were during the 2020 race, would you be able to tell me? Maybe some of you would, but I'm guessing a large majority of you would not be able to name them, and to be completely frank as I'm talking in this moment, I don't remember who they were, either. This is primarily a result of media companies not giving the third-party candidates equal coverage as the main two.
And the rationale is what you'd expect: they don't have a chance in hell to win. The logic flows like this: A Republican or a Democrat has been president for every cycle since Millard Fillmore won as a Whig back in 1850. For the past 17 decades, we've been essentially a two-party system at the presidential level. If only Republicans and Democrats can win, we as journalists will focus all of our energies on those who will most likely win. That's the logic.
Now let's apply that logic to other aspects of society. Think about ice cream. Imagine if there were only chocolate and vanilla flavors of ice cream available to everyone. Now, other flavors of course exist, but the powers that be, the ice cream vendors prevent us from having access to all the other flavors. To get anything other than chocolate or vanilla, we have to try really hard on our own. We have to drive it to a special location that's hours away.
This applies to anything really. Cars, computers, cell phones; choice matters. The sad irony is that Americans have more choices for more things than most places on the planet. I often feel paralyzed by choices. But yet, when it comes to choosing the most powerful human being on this space rock we call Earth, we're given two options? Really?
Any journalist who covers elections in the United States and only focuses on the two main parties are defenders of American democracy, which, again, I would argue, is broken. Now, you could argue that the primaries are when people get a larger variety of choices, but there are so many flaws with that argument, it's outside the scope of this podcast.
I'm not alone in this. Most of us actually agree that the two-party political system needs to go. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll found that support for a third party is the highest it's ever been, and barely a third of those polled actually thought that the two parties are doing an adequate job. The founding fathers consistently warned about the dangers of having two parties.
In Federalist Number 10, James Madison wrote: “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests. You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”
John Adams was more poignant. He warned directly that a “division of the Republic into two great parties is to be dreaded as the greatest political Evil,” and he capitalized “evil” there. And yet look at how we cover elections in this country: two parties.
There are many other things that also need to be fixed about our democracy, things that I would argue most people would agree with regardless of their political views, things like campaign finance reform, term limits for congressmen, the need to rein in lobbyists, fair and equitable tax reform. And yes, journalists have covered many of these issues in the course of their work, but because they don't focus their energies on the core of the problem – democracy being broken – and instead focus on the mere symptoms of democracy’s dysfunction, democracy remains broken, and journalists remain champions of a broken system.
We constantly fail to ask the deeper questions of stories. Why does this thing we're covering even exist in the first place? I don't know about you, but that's not the kind of democracy or society that I support. So if you're a journalist and you don't support that kind of democracy, why would you continue to think of yourself as democracy’s defender? Why are we reporting on the same stories over and over again and expecting different results? Isn't that the definition of insanity?
I'll wager that it's because in the depths of our minds live the idea that American democracy, while admittedly imperfect, is worth fighting for. And that's just a cop out. It's not imperfect, it's broken, and we have to admit that before we can improve our practice.
It only seems imperfect to some and not fully broken because of all the things about it.
That make us proud: business opportunities, sports teams to rally behind, delicious and abundant and cheap food, and endless entertainment. And yet, those things merely disguise the deeper truth, which I think most of us feel deep in our guts.
That the system is broken, and it needs big change. Now, I don't want you to think that I'm just going to complain about all this with no suggestions on how to do better. Stand by until the end. I promise. There's some light at the end of the tunnel. Just bear with me.
Reason 3: Defending an Ideology Precludes Fair Coverage of Competing Ideologies
And the third reason why journalists shouldn't be defenders of democracy is this. Defending an ideology precludes fair coverage of competing ideologies, and it also impedes fair coverage of regular stories that happen in societies that are not democratic. I know that's a mouthful, so let's dive more into that.
I want to ask you a question. If you're a journalist and you consider yourself a defender of democracy – whether it's democracy as it exists or how you think it – is your defense of democracy a form of activism? Can you, as a journalist who's charged with being fair and unbiased cover, say, a rising socialist movement within the United States as fairly as you would say, a women's rights movement? Or what about a satanist movement or white supremacy? Now, some journalists, no doubt, would cover these different stories with equal earnestness, but I imagine a large number of journalists, far more than not, would not cover these issues with the same fairness of mind, and perhaps for good reason. In some cases, nobody wants to spread hateful messages under the guise of being fair.
But the problem in this case runs deeper than individual journalists. Movements that appear from the fringe or that have certain connotations are often not covered at all, not because the reporters don't like the message from the movement, but because editors and publishers and the top management simply don't find it newsworthy. Or, if they do find it newsworthy, they will usually frame the story through that same tired lens and refuse to see the deeper truth about why this movement even exists in the first place.
So the story either gets covered with no respect to the movement's origins, or it's ignored. Journalists who otherwise might cover it fairly are asked to cover the GOP convention instead. At least the GOP convention is recognizable to the audience. It doesn't require days of reporting or backgrounding. In other words, it can be turned easily for a daily story. It doesn't threaten the worldviews of both the left and the right. Instead, it reinforces those bifurcated views and again contributes to polarization.
But maybe that's exactly what we should be doing: seeking out stories that actually do threaten both political sides. But that's a topic for another podcast.
While researching this episode, I wanted to see if anyone else had taken a critical look at this idea I’m talking about, whether journalists should defend democracy. And specifically, I wanted to see if anyone had looked at whether journalists from democratic countries covered other ideologies with the same fairness that they would cover a story about democracy. But even more specifically, would they cover a story about, say, a local business in a socialist country the same way they cover a story about a local business in a democratic one? Or what about an election? Would they approach an election in authoritarian society the same way they would an election in a democratic society? What about different democracies? Do we cover elections in Norway, which is supposedly has the best democracy, the same way we cover our own? Or, do we completely ignore those elections because they’ve figured it out and it's not sexy enough for the front page?
No, these stories are not covered the same. That's because journalists would more heavily scrutinize facts in the non-democratic countries and basically ignore the facts in the good democracies. Maybe that's warranted, for obvious reasons, but that mentality only contributes to our collective laziness, because we're not asking the deeper questions of our own system, only of those that are different from us. Or, more importantly, we only dig deep into stories that seem to threaten our way of life.
I looked for research that might have explored these ideas. Of course, it was by no means an exhaustive search, but I didn't turn up anything. But what did turn up, time and time again, unsurprisingly, were articles talking about the importance of journalism in a democracy. Of course, I'm not arguing against that. I've already said that I agree with that 100%. But by not questioning how this thought itself is an ideology and is a bias and how those thoughts then color our reporting on things that might threaten democracy... well, we are doing the public a disservice. We are being dishonest with ourselves about our own biases.
Now just to be clear, I'm not one of those people who thinks we need to hide or lie about our biases. That's just silly. I'm definitely a transparency person. Be honest about your biases, use them when it helps the story, and don't cover a story if your bias impedes your ability to seek complex truth. Talk about all this with your editors before you start reporting, and that's pretty much it.
So I couldn't find any research on this. I didn't come across any papers that explored the effect of being a journalist in a democratic country who covers stories that happen in undemocratic countries. O, to make matters even more complicated, what about a U.S. journalist covering a story in, say, the U.K. or Japan or Australia or Switzerland? Is an American journalist’s understanding of democracy gonna taint their understanding of stories that happen in other democracies?
Here's something else to think about. Let's look at coverage of the Taliban. How many of you listening out there have ever heard an actual interview with a person from the Taliban? I could think of maybe two or three times I've encountered such an interview in the last 20 years or so.
The people usually speaking for the Taliban are people who are against the Taliban. Recently I heard on the NPR program, The World, a woman who lives in the U.K., and she talked about how bad the Taliban's new policy on women's clothes was. The host even asked that person to provide facts about the Taliban's stance on this, which is something journalists are never supposed to do. We are supposed to get facts by going directly to the source, not sourcing facts from those who are clearly against the thing they're talking about. Imagine if we got facts about Hillary Clinton by talking to Donald Trump or vice versa. Are they reliable sources of facts about each other?
Forget that I agree with this person about the Taliban. Yes, the Taliban's policy is absolutely very wrong, but I haven't heard anything from the Taliban itself on this point. All I've heard is information from Western media sources, who, I would argue, are always gonna publish negative views about the Taliban. Why? Because the Taliban represents a threat to democracy.
Let me be crystal clear on this one point. I am not supporting the Taliban, but how can we ever expect peace among nations, especially from those, we're told, hate us, when all we ever do is provide information about those people that paints them in a bad light? Why would the Taliban ever trust an American journalist? And by extension, how could American people ever know what's truly on the Taliban's agenda? More importantly, how can anyone know the truth about anything if all information is coming from a single side?
Now maybe all the information being fed to us by the national security apparatus is correct. Maybe all the stories we hear from journalists about the Taliban’s awfulness are also correct. Maybe every Afghan person who speaks out against the Taliban reflects the views of the common Afghan. Maybe they don't have an agenda aside from patriotism. Maybe that's all true, or even mostly true.
Or maybe the truth is far more complex than that. If a 20-year U.S. occupation was upended by the Taliban in 11 days? Well, my money is on the more complex reality, and yet we still only hear about the dangers of the Taliban rule. Why? Because again, the Taliban represent a threat to democracy.
Just to reiterate, there are times when journalism should defend democracy, and there are other times when maybe it shouldn't. Or maybe its defense should be tempered to allow for opinions to exist that might even threaten it. Debate and disagreements, these are the very things that make democracy great. So why would we stifle conversations just because it seems to threaten our way of life? Couldn't those conversations be used to strengthen it?
Again, I couldn't find any research that has explored whether a journalist in a democracy can cover other ideologies with fairness. I would genuinely love to read some, though, if you know of any, or if you've done some yourself, please, please reach out to me. I'll give you my contact info at the end of this episode.
I'll only bring this up because we take it for granted that journalists should defend democracy and it doesn't seem like we've taken a hard and critical look at what democracy we're actually defending. Is it the one we live in? Is it the one that exists in another country? Or maybe it's the one that exists in our minds as a possible future.
Reason 4: Fighting for Democracy Leads to Confirmation Bias
Finally, the fourth reason why journalists shouldn't be defenders of democracy: the fighting for it, is its own confirmation bias. We seek stories that defend it.
Now this one's tricky because, as I've said, there is a role for journalists to defend democracy, and maybe it's OK to seek out a story that defends it. But we have to at least be aware of a few things again. Again, first, what democracy are we defending? Second, are we missing a more important story because our defense of democracy is blinding us to a broader truth? And it's that second bit that I think is critical for us to contemplate. I'll say it in another way. Is our defense of democracy causing us to miss out on the bigger picture?
Let's take coverage of the 2016 elections as an example. I'm willing to bet that a large majority of journalists viewed Donald Trump as a threat to democracy. Just google that yourself and you can read headline after headline about all that. And because so many viewed him as a real threat, they missed the deeper story that a lot of Americans were really pissed off, and they really love the guy. And then he won, and many people were blindsided. Journalists dropped the ball.
Or what about coverage after the 9/11 attacks? Most media outlets gobbled up the lies from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attacks and that he had WMD's. That was all fabricated, yet almost all major news outlets ran with it, arguably because they believed it was their duty to defend democracy against those who had threatened it.
Current coverage of the Taliban is another example. Or, what about coverage of Venezuela's “two presidents”? The one in power, Nicolas Maduro, and the one supported by the U.S., Juan Guido. Are we covering those two men with the same fairness? Some are, but many aren't. Well, what about coverage of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny? Do we simply champion his voice because he's telling us exactly what we want to hear? Look up any news story about the guy and wow, he's a hero, and apparently with no agenda, just a real standup guy! And where does that perspective come from? It comes from our support of democracy and our everlasting anger at our uber-enemy, Russia.
Again, it's not wholly wrong to defend democracy. We just need to question how and why we are doing it, and, this is important: if that defense is supported by all the facts, or at least most of the facts.
Journalists are incredible askers of questions when it comes to seeking external truth, but I think we can do a much better job asking questions that seek an internal truth about our own motivations and processes before we begin reporting a story.
All that said, I do have an idea about how we can defend democracy a little bit differently. In 1896, the publisher of The New York Times took a stand. Adolf Ochs wrote the following, which appeared on the editorial page after he had taken over the paper:
It would be my earnest aim that The New York Times give the news, all the news, in concise and attractive form, in language that is parliamentary in good society, and give it as early, if not earlier, than it can be learned through any other reliable medium, to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party sect or interests involved. To make the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end, to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.
I don't know why I did that in a weird newsman-from-the-30s accent, it just seemed like the right thing to do. Now let's just repeat that key part in my regular voice. The New York Times will give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.
I do think many journalists do in fact strive to do this, for the most part. But we also fail, perhaps even too often, because we don't operate without favor when covering political parties or ideologies that threaten democracy. Do we cover the origins of religious extremism? Do we talk as much about why it exists as we do about the impact of its existence?
Maybe it exists because our democracy is broken. Or at least partially. Do we ever talk about that? Do we ever cover Libertarians and Green Party candidates with the same fairness? We also fail when it comes to sects. Do we cover different types of extremists with the same fairness? Only recently did we begin to recognize white supremacy as a form of domestic terrorism, but it's taken centuries for that to happen.
Do we cover the Taliban fairly? It's a sect of Islam, which is a major world religion. Or are we not fair because we're told they threaten democracy?
It should be said that we can't create false dichotomies by giving equal time to points of view, solely to present balance. That's one of the big lies that journalists want you to believe, and I talked about this in episode one. It's not about creating balance for the sake of fairness. It's about being fair for the sake of fairness.
We need to learn why something exists and stop focusing on the impact of its existence. We need to talk to the actual people who believe something and not to the people who hate what those people believe. Yes, you risk giving a platform to voices that could spread anti-democratic values or even hatred. But those voices already have a platform. They're already out there being heard and cultivating more followers. We ignore them at our own peril, and in doing so we empower people who already hate us to hate us even more because we report about them without talking to them.
We get info about them from people who hate them. Is that fair? Is that what journalism's about?
If we are to be defenders of democracy, we need to take Mr. Ochs's words to heart and truly operate by them. Since we have not operated by them, since we have chosen to defend different versions of democracy and demonize other ideologies because they threaten us. We, meaning journalists, are losing our most valuable currency: the public's trust.
We journalists have to apologize for losing trust and take earnest steps to not make the same mistakes. We must stop doubling down on old, tired ideas and stop telling people that they need journalism now more than ever. Why waste so much time telling people how badly they need journalists, instead of simply showing people why they need journalism by doing the good work? Don't tell me you need me. Show me. Dig up something important, uncover something terrible. Tell that story of a real-life hero who's fighting the good fight and inspire the rest of us to be better by being better yourself.
If trust is the primary currency that journalists deal in, and the public's trust is at an all-time low, and if democracy is something we, as journalists should be defending, and democracy in America, for all intents and purposes, is failing, what does that mean for the practice of journalism? Should we simply double down on everything we've done? Or should we do something different?
We need a different approach, and to do that, I suggest that journalists agree on the following five things. First, American democracy is broken. It's not flawed, it is broken. Second, we need to agree on what exactly is broken: campaign financing, unlimited congressional terms, the two-party system. These are good places to start. Let's figure out other things together.
Third, we will make earnest attempts to understand why something exists that threatens democracy, and stop focusing on its mere existence. Fourth, we will only defend democracy when that defense is warranted, and we will not defend democracy when that defense blinds us to a broader truth. And fifth, we should recognize that no matter what, we will be biased.
Why, then, don't we redefine journalism as the pursuit of equitable justice, which has no allegiance to ideology but is simply based on how a society distributes fairness? I know that idea is kind of out of the blue here, and we're gonna dig deeper into that in a later episode.
So, yes, journalists should sometimes defend democracy, but not always, and making that determination of when to defend it and when to not should be truly individualized and situation-dependent. It, at the very least, should be a conversation that an editor has with her reporter before reporting any story that touches on democratic or anti-democratic ideas. The key is how the story is framed. Should it be framed with a pro-democracy lens, and if so, what specifically is the democratic lens through which we're looking?
Now look, I'm not an expert on democracy. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like I have all the answers. Maybe I come across like that. If so, I apologize. I'm only here on this microphone telling you these things because for 10 years I, too, fell into the trap of being a blind defender of democracy without really thinking about the impact that my defense had on the public's right to know. I assumed that preservation and perpetuation of democracy was the end goal. Even though, in my mind, I pursued a better version of democracy than what currently exists. I still fell into the trap of being a defender of an ideology rather than a seeker of complex truth.
To those I covered who fell victim to my blind ideology, I apologize, sincerely. To those whose trust I lost, I apologize. I want to do better. I can do better. I will do better. But journalists need help. We need you to forgive us and help us as we move forward. After all, doesn't the survival of democracy depend on everyone getting involved?
So that's it, creatures, that's episode two of Baffled with David DesRoches. Again, please reach out to me with stories that you'd like for me to dissect. I can't promise I'll have all the answers, but I'll do my best to contextualize all that stuff that's out there. You can find me on Twitter at @savingEJ, or you can e-mail me at David.Desroches@qu.edu
This podcast is a production of the Quinnipiac University Podcast Studio. Our producer is Grace McGuire. Please subscribe on Apple, Spotify or the app of your choice and to learn more about this podcast and others, visit qu.edu/podcast. Until next time.