QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEDIA’S ETHICS

More than 25 years ago, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher of Humanistic Psychology wrote several books about social problems. He wrote ruthless critiques about the danger and damage of the media. This is what he wrote in 1974 in the book The Art of Being: “Another helpful attitude is one of one of deep distrust. Since most of what we hear is either plainly untrue, or half true, and half distorted, and since most of what we read in the newspapers is distorted interpretations served as facts, it is by far the best plan to start out with radical skepticism and the assumption that most of what one hears is likely to be a lie or a distortion. If this sound too grim and cynical, I might add that I do not man this quite literally but that I want to emphasize that it is much more healthful than the opposite premise, namely, to believe that people say the truth until the opposite is proven. (44)

How about that! And if that was the case in 1974 when we still had true journalists, I wonder what Fromm would think today when most so-called journalists have become social activists and political commentators?

Most of what we hear is either plainly untrue, or half true, and half distorted. Most of what we read in the newspapers is distorted interpretations served as facts.

This is definitely not the way to get to the facts of a case or the truth of a story. Now in court, a witness is asked to swear that he will tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Over the centuries, it became clear that if we want to get good evidence upon which to build our understandings and make legitimate evaluations, we need truth in these three dimensions so we can to determine the facts of a case.

For a judge or a jury to adequately, appropriately, and rightly think through the facts as known in a context and to make an intelligent decision, we need the evidence of facts. Only in that way can we draw conclusions that will be as just as possible. Such facts, which will always be fallible, and therefore will inadequate to varying degrees, that will still be is the best chance we have.

In court, when jurists are chosen, they are questioned pretty thoroughly by lawyers on both sides to determine if they are capable of making unbiased decisions. We ask if they have any vested interests in the case? Do they have any allegiances that might be compromising to the case? We ask them if they know the defendant or the claimant or members of the state who brought the case to the court? We ask if they are related to anyone? We ask if they have any biases against the police, the company, and so on. Are you willing to make an evaluation based on the facts?

If all of these things are important for determining the truth, as best as possible, in a court of law— it seems even more so in the court of public opinion. That is, media ought also to be held to the standard of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

Will you present the facts even if they do not fit the editorial policy of your newspaper, television station, or the ownership of the cable network? Will you present facts on both sides of an issue so the listeners can then make up their mind and decide? Will you eliminate as best you can all of the cognitive biases and fallacies? Will you make retractions and connections on the front page or in the beginning of a broadcast?

Today perhaps our biggest problem in getting “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” So much of what is presented is only partially true; some of it is completely untrue. Trump called it out when he called it “fake news.” But he’s not the only one Just this past week, I heard Biden pounce on CNN for “fate news.” Whenever the facts presented are not true, but are partial, the media’s ethics are in question.

So what is a person to do? One thing I do is that I switch channels constantly as I watch the news. I also compare what and how the various broadcasts present the same story in different ways. I also keep note of what is not presented. What mostly strikes me is what the mainstream media does not present—what they simply leave out. They just ignore so many of the stories. Right now, the biggest story missing is the open borders and the influx of tens-of-thousands of people entering illegally.

Given how polarized the media has become, how biased, how agenda-driven, how the media spins the news to fit their ideology— we have to become more skilled in critical thinking.