On the Super Committee, Media Objectivity and the Quest for Novelty

It is only a short step from exaggerating what we can find in the world to exaggerating our power to remake the world. Expecting more novelty than there is, more greatness than there is, and more strangeness than there is, we imagine ourselves masters of a plastic universe. But a world we can shape to our will - or to our extravagant expectations - is a shapeless world. 

-Daniel Boorstin, "The Image" 

Sometimes there is less to a debate or controversy than is presented. There may, in fact, be only one viewpoint to a particular issue that merits attention. Unfortunately, the U.S. media seeks to make politics more novel than it really is. In its quest to report stories within the Left versus Right framework, what it sees as "objectivity," facts are generally the first casualty.

Through the lens of the mainstream media, there are always two sides to an argument, and both are of equal value. If one side asserts an absolute truth, it isn't reported as such: it's simply one side of the debate. The other side can put forth an opposing, and utterly false, claim. Yet it is given equal weight, because it is from the opposing side, and therefore must be reported to maintain objectivity. And that is the state of journalism in America. For balanced and objective reporting, you must find that other side. Through this process, the media has helped to create a malleable and fact-less world. The truth is, as presented, always somewhere in the middle, no matter the validity of the opposing viewpoints.

The media's coverage of the congressional "Super Committee's" failure is a perfect example of fact-less reporting. Based on the reports from major media outlets, one would think that the committee failed because of both sides' intransigence. Policies based on reasoning and evidence versus policies based on extreme ideology; both equally valid positions; both sides equally to blame for the committee's failure. Shame on both of them for their partisan bickering.

But this is simply not the case. Democrats have put forth proposals that, while far from ideal, are actually based on sound economic data. Case in point: they want to create new revenue by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest people (both human and juridical) in the country. Republicans, on the other hand, are unwilling to compromise, and have presented proposals based not on credible evidence, but a rigid and extreme economic ideology. They advocate the familiar platform of tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to social programs and sweeping deregulation. Their proposals would do nothing to alleviate the country's most urgent problems: extreme poverty, long-term unemployment, and rising income inequality. They would simply have us continue on our current trajectory, and expedite the consolidation of wealth (and, by extension, power) into the hands of the very few. Republicans' policies are making this country utterly unlivable for the vast majority of the population. But, according to the media, that's just one competing, and totally acceptable, side to a contentious debate.

Republicans' counterfactual assertions are given equal weight as the claims of individuals who happen to come to the exact opposite conclusions based on reasoning and evidence, rather than hollow ideology. The major U.S. media outlets seem allergic to citing valid economic data when assessing the claims of lawmakers. It would, after all, compromise the narrative.

In the political realm, virtually everything remains a fact because it has been spoken by someone in power. Thus, the media submits its "objective" account: the Super Committee failed; both sides put forth valid proposals; but both sides were unwilling to budge; and both sides now share equal blame for their failure to strike a deal.

Major media outlets cling to this "balanced" method of reporting to the detriment of facts. They omit the truth to maintain the integrity of their method of coverage, rather than the integrity of their actual work. They seek more novelty within a story than there actually is. And, as a result, we are left with a perverted notion of objectivity, and unable to discern truths from falsehoods in most mainstream reporting.