The Storytelling Problem in Modern Journalism

It seems a daily item. Pure and honest journalist at CBS, the Washington Post, or the Los Angeles Times resigns in protest of what they believe to be an unreasonable expectation that they do more than uncritically advance rigid, absolute, and unyielding progressive dogma on every subject known to mankind. That, they argue, would compromise their integrity. Without fail, this comes with their informing us they will take their undying pledge to do honest “storytelling” to another platform. My argument is that journalism would be much better with a little less storytelling and a whole lot more reporting.

A Profession Lacking Self-Awareness

The lack of self-awareness in the profession borders on the comical. There is no chance they have a responsibility to actually separate the reporting of news from commenting about it. There is no possibility that understanding the world around us involves more than helping others grasp and accept the wisdom of the progressive narrative. The notion that conservatives might have a good point on anything is beyond the realm. If that means doing a complete reversal of what they had previously labeled as either good or bad, so be it. What is important is that the narrative be preserved at all costs.

Bias by the Numbers—and Selective Standards

The Media Research Center (MRC) reports that 92 percent of the coverage of President Trump has been negative. Remove a tyrant from office in Venezuela? Despite celebrations in the streets of Miami and in Venezuela, the problem is the lack of Congressional involvement. Apparently, that is among the ever-changing definitions of what is okay. Please show me the handwringing about the use of military force without Congressional approval when it happened multiple times under Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden.

When the Narrative Overrides the News

At this point, anyone who does not accept as a given that the legacy corporate media is progressive and biased from their heads to their toes is unlikely to be persuaded to think more about that conclusion by advancing statistic after statistic on the matter.

There are multiple reports—either coming long after the fact or from conservative platforms—of decisions not to report on Hunter Biden’s computer, the more than obvious decline in President Biden’s cognitive abilities, facts on the border, or at least 20 other things you can identify with nothing more than a quick Google. The reason? The top of the corporate media pile all determined that reporting such matters would help Donald Trump. That seemingly would not meet any definition of actual journalism. However, when you are guided by telling stories that defend the preferred narrative under all circumstances, this is done with what passes for professional pride.

A Look Back at Journalism’s Roots

To be fair, the idea of balanced reporting based on who, what, where, when, and why (known for decades as the five W’s) did not define journalism throughout our history. In fact, until the advent of radio, it was a competition between points of view that did not pretend not to have a viewpoint.

The radio was our first mass media. Hence, the need to simultaneously appeal to multiple points of view rewarded a lack of obvious bias. By World War II, this approach also mostly applied to print media. Television helped expand the 5W model. The stated goal was to be as unbiased as possible.

The Rise of Advocacy Journalism

The combination of a new information ecosystem and advocacy journalism has changed all of that. This new information ecosystem system, started by the advent of cable and exacerbated by the onset of digital platforms, accelerated the move towards affinity-based platforms.

By itself, this would probably not have been a death knell to traditional reporting. However, the legacy corporate platforms continued to insist they were not biased, while all the while practicing advocacy journalism in a singular direction.

An Echo Chamber in the Press Corps

By the time Bill Clinton was President, Time Magazine (still a big deal at that point) contributor, Nina Burleigh, commented at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.” Okay, now.

By 2020, nearly 90 percent of the White House press corps identified as Democrats, according to a survey by Indiana University’s David Weaver. In a country as evenly divided as we are today, would not you think simple logic would mean a slightly different ratio? They call it an echo chamber for a reason.

A Path Back to Real Reporting

This is not intended to be a diatribe against the media. The hope is that if enough of us are insisting that the profession of journalism take a more honest look at itself, change is possible. Respect for other points of view with a renewed commitment to the 5W’s will no doubt cause some displacement. At the same time, it tests the waters to determine if indeed there is a market for straight journalism. There will always be bias involved. The debate is between embracing that bias and advocating for a point of view or striving to achieve the goal of as little bias as possible. Count me as being in the second group.

Common sense: A return to more 5W reporting would be a plus for Americans of all points of view. It is time to wish “tell a story” journalism a less-than-fond goodbye and give a hopeful welcome to a return of actual reporting.