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.