News: Truth or Narrative?

In his essay, The Grisly Truth About Bare Facts, Carlin Romano makes the following claim:

“If journalists understood – as some philosophers and scientists increasingly do - that what they present to the reader is not a mirror image of the truth, but a coherent narrative of the world that serves particular purposes, what the press covers could become more flexible and better suited to our needs as readers and writers.”

For this, my second blog post in The COML 509 Series, we are going to discuss three key aspects of this claim. First, we’ll look briefly at some definitions for “truth.” After all, if we are going to be having a full-blown discussion on the claim that journalism is NOT the “mirror image of truth,” then we should at least know what our definition of truth is, right? Second, we’ll look at some ways in which the news can help provide us with a “coherent narrative.” Finally, we’ll discuss Romano’s final claim: that readers need a “coherent narrative” as opposed to “truth.” Shouldn’t the two be the same? Or perhaps a more important question, how are the two different?

Let us begin!

Once again starting with one of my favorite sites, Dictionary.com has eleven different definitions for truth. (Slightly ironic, don’t ya think?) The most basic definition defines truth as “conformity with fact or reality.” The most complex definition states that truth is, “ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.” Taking those two definitions, ask yourself this question: Does the news report the truth? I would argue that it does not. I would also argue that the majority of readers/viewers would agree with me. A quick web search will confirm that I am right, but only slightly.

According to a September 2010 Gallup Poll, fifty-seven percent of Americans say they have “they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.” Fifty-seven percent! This number seems rather low to me considering the fact that our only exposure to some of the more salient social issues is via news media. For example, I would have no idea what side Presidential candidates take on political or social issues if it weren’t for the news. Yet I’m supposed to cast an educated vote for one of them with a mean average of confidence in the range of forty-three percent? This would seem a bit risky, but “43%” is only an issue if you are looking to the news for truth. And as Romano claims, we shouldn’t be. We should be looking to the news for a “coherent narrative.”

If more journalists and consumers would view news as a narrative as opposed to straight, truthful fact, I believe that criticism would increase on both sides of the fence, leading to a news source that is, as Romano states, “more flexible and better suited to our needs.” Why? Because people don’t question facts.

At sea level, water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
Humans can’t fly unaided.
One plus one equals two.

These are facts that the average person will not question. However, average people question narratives often.

“Dude, I met the hottest girl last night!”
“I’m sorry, officer. I’m just really late for an appointment.”
“I really wanted to come to your party last night, but something popped up.”

We can easily see how these examples of every day conversation cause us to react differently than we would to statements of fact. As opposed to blindly accepting them as fact, we view them more skeptically, more critically. We look to additional sources of information such as body language, past experience with the person and perceived credibility in order to enhance the narrative and determine its “truth.”

So what then happens when journalists and consumers assume that the news is truth? Bottom line, we view it differently than we would a narrative. Take the following example from this recent news story:

“The woman who told President Barack Obama that she was ‘exhausted’ from defending him and his economic policies and waiting for the change she expected after voting for him has another reason to be put out: She's lost her job.”

There are elements of truth in this story. First, the woman mentioned did in fact tell President Obama that she was “exhausted” from defending him. Second, she did lose her job. However, if we just look at those two pieces of information simply as truth as opposed to pieces of a larger narrative, we can come to an unsubstantiated conclusion: that this woman lost her job because she “talked back” to President Obama.

Now the story goes on to state that the woman lost her job as part of her organization’s attempt to cut expenses, but even the story’s headline, “Woman ‘Exhausted’ Defending Obama Loses Job,” seeks to establish “truth” where it most likely does not exist. In fact, if this woman did not lose her job because of her perceived insubordination, then does this story even have news value? People are laid off every day. Why is this woman special just because she spoke up at a town hall meeting? The answer: she’s special because the news media is attempting to connect the two events.

Now how might this story have been handled differently if journalists viewed their job as creating a coherent narrative? First off, I don’t think this story would have run at all. Second, the reporter might have done a more thorough job of trying to find the facts that prove these two events were related. In my mind, this story is an excellent example of how the media attempted to create truth under the guise of narrative, and in doing so did a disservice to their readers.

So now that we have discussed some definitions of truth and given a concrete example of how the media can create either truth or narrative, let’s move on to the final section of this post. Why do consumers need narrative as opposed to “truth”?

I believe this answer can be summed up rather easily: because, in many cases, truth is subjective. When it comes to major issues, “truth” can be dependent upon values or morals, hidden information, perception, opinion, and a countless number of other factors that can reside at individual and societal levels. People need news in narrative form in order to better make sense of that information within the larger context of their lives.

For example, a prevailing “truth” that currently exists is that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. Disguised as truth, these two statements would make voting for most people pretty straightforward. Those who tend to be conservative in their viewpoints would vote Republican, and those who are more liberal would vote Democrat. However, we don’t get the whole story when the news uses these two statements of fact. Did you know that there are such things as Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats? How about a Democrat who is liberal on social policies, but tends to be more conservative with fiscal policies? Without narrative, none of these “truths” would be revealed.

I have a four-year old son, and I have told him a few times now, “if you’re not telling me the whole truth, than you are lying.” To me, this seems to be a foundational lesson, learned early in life, that journalists and consumers forget when it comes to the news.

Internet: Global village or community killer?

Good afternoon, readers of my blog! Whether you are one of my classmates from COML 509, Social Dynamics of Communication Technology, or one of the three people who occasionally perused my ramblings before I stopped writing a while ago, welcome! While everyone from my class knows exactly why I am making this post right now, I’d like to take a brief moment to explain my return to the blogosphere to anyone else who might have stumbled upon this post, whether by mistake, misguided interest, or pure boredom.

As I mentioned above, I am currently enrolled in COML (that stands for Communication & Leadership) 509, a Master’s-level class at Gonzaga University. For this class, we are required to write three short reflective papers (approximately 2-3 pages) on various aspects of computer-mediated communication, or CMC. To spice things up, our forward-thinking teacher (big shout out to Assistant Professor Nobuya Inagaki) has given us the option to either write these papers in a traditional format or post them to a blog. For me, this was a no-brainer! Not only will I be able to avoid some of the annoying nuances of a more formal paper, but it also makes sharing my genius with the “cyberverse” as easy as posting a link.

You’re welcome.

Now that that’s out of the way, let us continue on to the meat of this blog post. During the discussion portion of this class, we were given a list of questions to consider. In this post, I would like to discuss just one of these questions. Now I say “discuss” as opposed to “answer” because the blog format affords every reader the opportunity to contribute to the conversation. I chose this particular question because, in a class designed to study the implications of CMC, I believe it is one of the most important questions we can discuss. The topic we will be discussing is:

Has the internet contributed to the construction of a global village or to the destruction of community?

Oooooh…exciting! Let us begin.

As a precursor to the discussion, I think it’s important that we define “community.” Here are the first three definitions according to dictionary.com

1. A social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.
2. A locality inhabited by such a group.
3. A social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics
or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the ): the business community; the community of scholars

.
For our purposes, each definition can work. Definition 3 may seem to fit the best since it eliminates the factor of a shared locality. However, when we consider that the internet is as much a locality for information and socialization as a library or local bar would be, the first two definitions make sense as well.

Now that we have defined “community,” we are one step closer to determining the impact the internet has had on it. Neil Postman, a popular media theorist and cultural critic once (or maybe more times) said, “Technology always has unforeseen consequences, and it is not always clear, at the beginning, who or what will win, and who or what will lose” (Source cite). So what have been the “unforeseen consequences” of the internet? Who wins with the internet? Who loses?

I know some who would claim that the internet and other forms of CMC are simply meant to be extensions of face-to-face communication. In fact, the concept of the internet was originally created by the Defense Department as a way to communicate in the event of a nuclear war, an event that would make face-to-face communication impossible in many situations.

Internet aside, there is little question that, up until the advent of communication technologies such as the printing press and telegraph, the ability to communicate face-to-face formed the basis for most “villages” or communities. If not already accomplished by older technologies, the internet has completely obliterated the need for two people to be face-to-face in order to communicate. Additionally, it would seem that the internet has significantly increased our ability to connect with people who share common characteristics or interests: two factors necessary to form community according to our definition.

So with all of this in mind, it seems safe to claim that the internet has indeed helped construct a sort of global village. While not physical locations, sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Match.com and eHarmony have definitely become gathering places for millions of people all around the world, making them mega virtual villages in their own rights. Facebook alone operates in approximately 70 translations for its more than 500,000 users. Did I mention that people spend more than 700 billion minutes PER MONTH on Facebook? If I did my math right, that’s a combined 1.3 million years spent on Facebook every month. Now Rome wasn’t built in a day, but the world’s largest skyscraper, Burj Khalifa2, was built in approximately 22 million man-hours. If we took the “man-hours” spent on Facebook each day and used them to build skyscrapers, we would have 17 by close of business. In my book, that classifies as a small-to-medium sized village.

So when it comes to the internet, Neil Postman was right. Created to allow for communication after a nuclear holocaust, the unforeseen consequence of the internet is the ability to easily waste (in this grad student’s opinion) a fairly significant amount of time. Who wins in this scenario? Well obviously Facebook is doing pretty well. Who loses? We’ll start to answer this…right now.

We can safely assume that the internet has helped construct a global village. However, has this construction of a global village contributed to the overall destruction of community? Since this is only supposed to be a three page reflective paper and not a 40-page research project, I’m going to keep things somewhat simple. My answer: it depends.

Not everyone uses the internet the same way. For some (and most likely a shrinking minority), the internet is simply a tool, another resource they can use to enhance their life. For others, however, the internet has become almost necessary for their survival. Online banking, shopping, scheduling, troubleshooting and socializing can all be done online. To steal a recent status message from one of my friends, who will remain anonymous, “Who will become my 400th friend? The Internet says I have 399 friends, but my Friday nights say I have, like, 2.” Ouch. That quote hits home in a kind of painful way! Personally, I haven’t spoken to a bank teller in well over a year. Most of my Christmas shopping this year will be done on Amazon.com. I share stories about my kids with friends over Facebook. Three events that would traditionally be accomplished via a face-to-face encounter have been reduced to me, a keyboard and a conglomeration of binary, bits, packets and code that completely baffle me.

In a way, the internet has dissolved some of the personal connections in my community. The internet has also created other connections, but none as personal as human-to-human interaction.

On the flip side, I am currently writing a blog post that has the potential to be seen by tens and tens of people (I try to keep my expectations realistic). While I will most likely have a personal connection with a few of the readers, the vast majority (including my professor and classmates) will probably be people with whom I have never had a face-to-face conversation. In this way, the internet has constructed personal connections for me in a virtual community that would have never existed otherwise.

So has the internet destroyed community? In a way, yes. In another way, no. But I’m just one person in this global village. What is your opinion?



Online references
http://www.suite101.com/content/origin-of-the-internet-a52825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/41963.Neil_Postman