Sidebar: The "Post-truth" Society

In the latest Sunday School Extra Credit post, I shared some of the discussion on Meet the Press about our 'post-truth' society, which is how Chuck Todd described our current state of affairs. 

The show devoted a segment to Todd's conversation with the executive editors of the Washington Post and NY times - Martin Baron and Dean Baquet, respectively; a segment to how lies become 'truths' using Crowdstrike as an example; and a segment to the Russian art of spreading propaganda and misinformation. 

The panel discussion was all about social media, its lack of regulation, and how personal responsibility is important in helping stop the spread of misinformation and the suspension of truth. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Chuck Todd managed to bring both Alexander Hamilton and LBJ into the conversation, ensuring his place in whataboutism history. 

One of the most interesting comments in the panel discussion came from Todd, who said

I mean, we are now aware that there are some politicians who want to come on this show, because they're hoping to get a viral moment to use for fundraising. And the minute we caught wind of that, we won't put those folks on. 

To which I offer these two words: Ted Cruz.  But I digress. Here are some things that I didn't see covered, that I wish had been.

• Where is the separation between the journalists and the politicians, and what level of separation should there be? Think about the White House Correspondents Dinner (as it used to be pre-Trump), or the various versions of that same model that play out in the states (here in NY, it's the Legislative Correspondents Association). The dinner, the skits, the roasts - what journalistic purpose is advanced by having these engagements, and how do readers benefit from them? 

• The role of the 'media star' - the Sunday Show and cable show hosts, the nightly news anchors are just some examples. This is more of a TV thing than a print thing, but there are media stars in print, too. The oversized personae of these folks actually gets in the way of the news they're reporting, or the conversation we're supposed to be learning from. Case in point? Chuck Todd, again, and his conversation with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in which Todd fought harder than ever before - on a question about Johnson 'wincing' at something. What was the point of that battle, and all the kudos he received? Another example: ANY political debate, in which the questioners (the media stars) end up being the center of attention, not the candidates. How would they address that?

• The conversation tended to focus on issues with conservatives, with Republicans, with Fox News, to the exclusion of any ill will or bad acts on the part of Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, etc.  Are they pretending that misinformation, disinformation and incorrect reporting is a problem only on one side of the spectrum? Or are they ignoring it? I fact-check posts from Dems just as much as I do posts from Republicans. The Rs are better at the disinformation - they have the president, after all. But that poses another question: should the Dems fully engage in the battle? And what would the media folks do if that happened? 

• The issue of trust, which was brought up not only by the print folks but also by Joshua Johnson, the former radio guy who's moving full time to MSNBC. Nothing was said about bad reports that get into print in a rush to be first; nothing was said about false reporting that is never corrected by the media outlet that issued it; and nothing was said about reporters and talking heads who have lied, quite publicly, but still have their face time and are still given an audience, because they said they were sorry. 

• They talked about misinformation or disinformation posts being shared tens of millions of times. I've shared patently ridiculous memes on social media -  sometimes for fact-checking but more because they're funny - but I'm surely included in the sharing data, as are the folks in this post about a great WaPo article on a satirical social media page. We don't get much nuance, particularly on TV, but it's an issue in the print media, too. How can journalists address that, in the context of our 30-second attention span? And as consumers, would the experts recommend we ignore the bad memes and articles, or that we share to educate? 

• And finally, to Todd's comment about not booking these folks? I don't know who they're not booking, but if they're booking members of the Trump Administration, the GOP and Dem leadership of the House and Senate, or any of the usual suspects - and we know who they are - they're not following that policy. And, I wonder what value the 'balanced' Sunday Shows provide us? The practice of booking a Dem and a Republican with opposing views on the same subject, without any fact-checking, accomplishes what? Does it build trust in the journalistic process? Does it help educate us? Or does it merely promote the show and bring in ad revenue? 

I guess my overarching question is, what would any of these folks - print, television, or radio - change in their media to help break through the mess they talked about? It seemed they're saying we need to do better, but what are they going to do better?