Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Net Erodes the Authority of the Press

It's easily the most useful diagram I've found for understanding the practice of journalism in the United States, and the hidden politics of that practice. You can draw it by hand right now. Take a sheet of paper and make a big circle in the middle. In the center of that circle draw a smaller one to create a doughnut shape. Label the doughnut hole "sphere of consensus." Call the middle region "sphere of legitimate debate," and the outer region "sphere of deviance."

That's the entire model. Now you have a way to understand why it's so unproductive to argue with journalists about the deep politics of their work. They don't know about this freakin' diagram! Here it is in its original form, from the 1986 book The Uncensored War by press scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Hallin felt he needed something more supple--and truthful--than calcified notions like objectivity and "opinions are confined to the editorial page." So he came up with this diagram.

Let's look more carefully at his three regions.

1.) The sphere of legitimate debate is the one journalists recognize as real, normal, everyday terrain. They think of their work as taking place almost exclusively within this space. (It doesn't, but they think so.) Hallin: "This is the region of electoral contests and legislative debates, of issues recognized as such by the major established actors of the American political process."

Here the two-party system reigns, and the news agenda is what the people in power are likely to have on their agenda. Perhaps the purest expression of this sphere is Washington Week on PBS, where journalists discuss what the two-party system defines as "the issues." Objectivity and balance are "the supreme journalistic virtues" for the panelists on Washington Week because when there is legitimate debate it's hard to know where the truth lies. There are risks in saying that truth lies with one faction in the debate, as against another-- even when it does. He said, she said journalism is like the bad seed of this sphere, but also a logical outcome of it.

2. ) The sphere of consensus is the "motherhood and apple pie" of politics, the things on which everyone is thought to agree. Propositions that are seen as uncontroversial to the point of boring, true to the point of self-evident, or so widely-held that they're almost universal lie within this sphere. Here, Hallin writes, "journalists do not feel compelled either to present opposing views or to remain disinterested observers." (Which means that anyone whose basic views lie outside the sphere of consensus will experience the press not just as biased but savagely so.)

Consensus in American politics begins, of course, with the United States Constitution, but it includes other propositions too, like "Lincoln was a great president," and "it doesn't matter where you come from, you can succeed in America." Whereas journalists equate ideology with the clash of programs and parties in the debate sphere, academics know that the consensus or background sphere is almost pure ideology: the American creed.

3.) In the sphere of deviance we find "political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard." As in the sphere of consensus, neutrality isn't the watchword here; journalists maintain order by either keeping the deviant out of the news entirely or identifying it within the news frame as unacceptable, radical, or just plain impossible. The press "plays the role of exposing, condemning, or excluding from the public agenda" the deviant view, says Hallin. It "marks out and defends the limits of acceptable political conduct."

Anyone whose views lie within the sphere of deviance--as defined by journalists--will experience the press as an opponent in the struggle for recognition. If you don't think separation of church and state is such a good idea; if you do think a single payer system is the way to go; if you dissent from the "lockstep behavior of both major American political parties when it comes to Israel" (Glenn Greenwald) chances are you will never find your views reflected in the news. It's not that there's a one-sided debate; there's no debate.

Complications to keep in mind.

The three spheres are not really separate; they create one another, like the public and private do. The boundaries between regions are semi-porous and impermanent. Things can move out of one sphere and into another--that's what political and cultural change is, if you think about it--but when they do shift there is often no announcement. One day David Brody of Christian Broadcasting Network shows up on Meet the Press, but Amy Goodman of Democracy Now never does.

This can be confusing. Of course, the producers of Meet the Press could say in a press release, "We decided that Pat Robertson's CBN is now within the sphere of legitimate debate because..." but then they would have to complete the "because" in a plausible way and very often they cannot. ("Amy Goodman, we decided, does not qualify for this show because...") This gap between what journalists actually do as they arrange the scene of politics, and the portion they can explain or defend publicly--the difference between making news and making sense--is responsible for a lot of the anger and bad feeling projected at the political press by various constituencies that notice these moves and question them.

Within the sphere of legitimate debate there is some variance. Journalists behave differently if the issue is closer to the doughnut hole than they do when it is nearer the edge. The closer they think they are to the unquestioned core of consensus, the more plausible it is to present a single view as the only view, which is a variant on the old saw about American foreign policy: "Politics stops at the water's edge."

Another complication: Journalists aren't the only actors. Elections have a great deal to do with what gets entered into legitimate debate. Candidates--especially candidates for president--can legitimize an issue just by talking about it. Political parties can expand their agenda, and journalists will cover that. Powerful and visible people can start questioning a consensus belief and remove it from the "everyone agrees" category. And of course public opinion and social behavior do change over time.

Some implications of Hallin's model.

That journalists affirm and enforce the sphere of consensus, consign ideas and actors to the sphere of deviance, and decide when the shift is made from one to another-- none of this is in their official job description. You won't find it taught in J-school, either. It's an intrinsic part of what they do, but not a natural part of how they think or talk about their job. Which means they often do it badly. Their "sphere placement" decisions can be arbitrary, automatic, inflected with fear, or excessively narrow-minded. Worse than that, these decisions are often invisible to the people making them, and so we cannot argue with those people. It's like trying to complain to your kid's teacher about the values the child is learning in school when the teacher insists that the school does not teach values.

When (with some exceptions) political journalists failed properly to examine George W. Bush's case for war in Iraq, they were making a category mistake. They treated Bush's plan as part of the sphere of consensus. But even when Congress supports it, a case for war can never be removed from legitimate debate. That's just a bad idea. Mentally placing the war's opponents in the sphere of deviance was another category error. In politics, when people screw up like that, we can replace them: throw the bums out! we say. But the First Amendment says we cannot do that to people in the press. The bums stay. And later they are free to say: we didn't screw up at all, as David Gregory, now host of Meet the Press, did say to his enduring shame.

"We are not allowing ourselves to think politically."

Deciding what does and does not legitimately belong within the national debate is--no way around it--a political act. And yet a pervasive belief within the press is that journalists do not engage in such action, for to do so would violate their principles. As Len Downie, former editor of the Washington Post once said about why things make the front page, "We think it's important informationally. We are not allowing ourselves to think politically." I think he's right. The press does not permit itself to think politically. But it does engage in political acts. Ergo, it is an unthinking actor, which is not good. When it is criticized for this it will reject the criticism out of hand, which is also not good.

Atrios, the economist and liberal blogger with a big following, has a more colorful phrase for "maintaining boundaries around the sphere of legitimate debate." He often writes about the "dirty f*cking hippies," by which he means the out-of-power or online left, and the way this group is marginalized by Washington journalists, who sometimes seem to define themselves against it. "In the late 90s, the dirty f*cking hippies were the crazy people who thought that Bill Clinton should neither resign nor be impeached," he writes. "In the great wasteland of our mainstream media there was almost no place one could turn to find someone expressing the majority view of the American public, that this whole thing was insane." Sometimes the people the press thinks of as deviant types are closer to the sphere of consensus than the journalists who are classifying those same people as "fringe."

How can that happen? Well, one of the known problems with our political press is that its reference group for establishing the "ground" of consensus is the insiders: the professional political class in Washington. It then offers that consensus to the country as if it were the country's own, when it's not, necessarily. Savvy analysis of the inside game simulates a more genuine political dialogue. All this erodes confidence in a way that may be invisible to journalists behaving as insiders themselves. And it gives the opening to Jon Stewart and his kind to exploit that gap I talked about between making news and making sense.

"Echo chamber" or counter-sphere?

Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized-- meaning they were connected "up" to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the "sphere of legitimate debate" as defined by journalists doesn't match up with their own definition.

In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the "echo chamber," which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what's really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.

Which is how I got to my three word formlua for understanding the Internet's effects in politics and media: "audience atomization overcome."

Comments

[DomainDiva]

The AUTHORITY of the press?

Give me a flippin' break. Just because Woodward and Bernstein outed tricky dicky does not mean that the press has this 'authority' to dictate their views to the masses.

Sounds FOX-news-ish to me, and CNBC needs to send Erin Burnett back to FOX as well.

[StephenKMack]

An absolutely first rate post!!!! I am printing it, to put in my file of indispensable writing!
Thank you!Thank you!

[UberReaganite]

On the subject of the "Authority" of the press....

On a past post on Huffington I had a reporter state with authority that the way the press covered and exposed the pedophile abuse going on in the Catholic church was "outstanding Journalism" and that the reporter (probably the guy attacking my post) got a Pulitzer for their efforts.

My response was that the press knew of these acts by church officials for over ONE HUNDRED years prior to their recently EXPOSING this crisis and they willingly and institutionally coordinated and participated with organized religion in a COVER UP of that abuse. I asked him if the PULITZER AWARD winning article mentioned that and accepted responsibility for the press FACILITATING that abuse of children for well over ONE HUNDRED years bt the church. I asked if they apologized for that and accepted responsibi­lity...

Funny, he never responded to me again....W­hy is that?

Arianna Huffington posts her views on this forum but she doesnt make this forum HER VIEWS ONLY. It is because of that reason right there that no matter what she ever says that I disagree with personally I will always still respect her commitment to HONEST jounalism and debate. Feel free to take some notes...

[JBS]

One of the things that informs bias (and I can accept that for some, it is un-intentional bias) is that the sphere of consensus is defined by those who manage large news organizations, i.e. CORPORATIONS.

It's the old problem of defining "what's good for General Motors is good for the USA" ... whether it is or not.

In fact, what may be good for the management of the corporation may not be good for the corporation itself, but management controls the media and they define the sphere of consensus.

Reporters know where their paychecks come from, and whether they admit it or not, they know which stories to follow - and which ones NOT to follow - if they want to keep drawing those paychecks.

If you don't believe it, just ask Dan Rather, Robert Parry or Garry Web.

[bigbadsam]

Debate within the Sphere of Concensus involves whether to give Israel 5 billion or 50 billion dollars this year. Or how many Palestinians sdo we need to kill or starve to please our ally. Or maybe how much money to give to the bankers so that they can pay their bonuses and take trips to the happy isles in their corporate jets. Or which traitor to ostracize and which one to welcome to our table. And so on. The "mainstream media" is hooked on this.

[UberReaganite]

Bloggers tap in to gain a following? I would say professional reporters are the ones looking for a "following­"....

I think the term "echo chamber" reeks of arrogance. As if only the press is able to formulate actual ideas and the rest of society can only talk about those ideas and not actually add to them or enhance them. That is quite amusing actually, the press as the source of intelligent thought in America? LOL.

The ancient Greeks over 2500 years ago were smart enough to know that any ideas they had were not valid or intelligent unless those ideas could hold their own through a comprehensive and intelligent debate. Ideas that are not questioned or given a thorough analysis by a diverse and intuitive group tend to be....STUP­ID ideas. Humans knew this 2500 years ago, before CNN and before the Bible....

I think America has had enough STUPID ideas forced on them from one sided communication. From ridiculously inaccurate and downright biased textbooks used by dummies for teaching dummies to having people in the press with little or no intelligence at all espousing their own ridiculous ideas to a captive and unquestioning audience of ignorant SHEEP America has suffered greatly from one-sided communication. Blogging at least restores a forum to debate and critique ideas through public commentary and it is TWO SIDED. The ancient Greeks would approve of the internet and Blogging far more than they would any of Americas textbooks or news reports...­.

[Karma7]

CNN is a prime example of one-sided reporting

For example, one of CNN’s major "Middle East experts," Jeffrey Goldberg, is a self-identified "passionate Zionist" and member of the Israeli military.

CNN should identify him as such whenever he speaks or is cited in reports or analyses -- which is often.

Journalistic ethics and standard practice would require the media to state this clearly and frequently. It would also require that he, as a partisan, be balanced with an equally articulate commentator representing the other side.

Being a member of a foreign military is a clear conflict of interest for a journalist whose job is to give unbiased information on the country he is serving and compromises his position as an analyst.

Even in the midst of a major financial crisis, American taxpayers give Israel $7 million per day " and sometimes considerably more. It is essential that we receive factual, unbiased information on Israel-Palestine and other crises affecting Americans. Misrepresenting officers in a foreign military as journalistic analysts damages CNN’s reputation and credibility as an unbiased source of news.

That is why I no longer watch CNN.

[welshTerrier2]

Try this: pick any three issues. Now, explain in detail the differences on these issues between Obama and McCain. I doubt you can do it in a meaningful way. Add in the other candidates from the two major parties. Now do it for all of them. I guarantee you'll fail. Now extend that to the third party candidates.

If a well-informed electorate is the lifeblood of democracy, we're in dire need of a transfusion.

The author puts the blame on mainstream journalists. To be sure, they're a major part of the problem. When it comes to "mainstream", the goal is PROFITS; not knowledge and not a well-informed electorate. The goal is STATUS QUO; not change. Media corporations and their shareholders do not want to upset the apple cart. Those they hire must either toe-the-line or leave. Most well-paid media personalities are not about to risk their jobs for the betterment of their fellow citizens.

But the problem extends beyond corporatism and capitalism and greed.

Far too few seek to learn and discuss critical issues and policy at their core. Those who do are rarely able to use what they've learned to promote a cohesive vision for change. Those who do are rarely able or willing to implement that vision by acting and organizing.

The fault lies not just with status quo journalists and not just with "profits before people" media corporations and their talking heads; the fault, dear reader, lies with you and me.

[hmargret]

Interestin­g....but the problems of the press also show up in the internet. The press is made up of individual­s....like a blogger...­.but the difference seems to be that print is an entrenched industry while the internet is still young & growing at the moment. The hope is that the internet does not close down it's openness & become corporate. Then the questions can be asked for the people.

[jackbutler5555]

This article is a detailed assertion that the press is biased. But it does not go into that much detail to prove its case. It is a hypothetical explanation that might be made as to why the press is biased, but that's putting the cart before the horse. One must prove the phenomenon before analyzing the cause. That news media fall short is a given. Journalists will even concede that. But the matter of intentional press bias is much more complex. Ask a liberal if the press is biased, his/her answer would be the same one a conservative would make. Both want the media to report the "truth."

[JBS]

Actually, it points out one bias - "WE insiders vs everyone else", which clearly does exist.

Liberal-Co­nservative is not the only axis along which bias could occur.

[Social Construct]

The author needs to expand on this excellent essay so that it may be taught in our academic institutions. The foundations of the journalism institutional framework are indeed shifting and it is a natural reaction for the traditionalist press to intrench and try to hold a position whose legitimacy is, perhaps, past worth holding. Also, any journalists that make themselves aware of how the boundaries mentioned in the essay are dependant on their own rationalizations are journalists worth their salt.

[cqyates]

actually i read hallins book at uc berkeley.

[danpearce]

Excellent article and exactly to the point. It explains why 'investigative' journalists are a rare and dying breed in the US and the same is true, though not to the same extent, in the UK. We need journalists who can articulate the voice of the people, not the voice of establishment spin.

[FrozenNorthObserver]

The US press is by far the most pathetic and enemic of the western world. Instead of being watch dogs for the citizenary they are guard dogs for the Washington establishment and the corrupt status quo. The fact that people can now fact check for themselves and see different opinions has hurt their credibility and righfully deserved. They been shown to be nothing more than propaganda peddlers on numerous occassions during the BushCo yrs. If you are in the credibility biz and have no product you no longer serve any useful purpose.

[RonMar]

The press has eroded its own authority, respect and financial status by faking news stories, photos and videos, printing opinions thinly disguised as news, and abandoning long ago its responsibility to “inform the people” in favor of making a difference in the world or some such pap. The press could have made a difference in the world or achieved other objectives some media members have mouthed by sticking to its first responsibility.
In writing this Jayson Blair of New York Times infamy and a young woman journalist gushing her goal was to change the world as she received an award – one of the many given by the media to themselves – come to mind.

[indyleftist]

I'd basically agree
But, can I ask how you did not end up quoting Noam Chomsky when writing a piece like this?
His writings on "manufacturing consent" are pretty much the primary source for these arguments. He obviously takes it a bit further than Rosen does here

Bravo for the Amy Goodman mention

[mheister]

Good point about Noam Chomsky.

Rosen doesn't fully address the issue of the "get" - that it's become more important to MSM outlets to get the interview than to have the interviewee without preconditions. They consider it a feather in the cap to be able to draw Dick Cheney to Meet the Press, but don't notice the cap Cheney is affixing to the correspondent's head is a dunce cap.

It's also become more difficult for some of these journalists to seriously go after politicians because they play tennis together, their kids attend the same private schools, and they wind up in some of the same social circles.

[indyleftist]

Yes,
He also makes a false distinction between TV and Internet
His example of an outsider from the left, Amy Goodman, is a good demonstration
Goodman is on both TV and the internet. But only on non-mainstream outlets.
On TV she is on obscure "link" or public access channels, never on meet the press as the author points out.
But the so called "mainstream" internet sites (I'll name a competitor so as not be offend the owners here) like Drudge Report or Politico don't link to her site at the bottom of the page with the rest of the links. They don't run her columns. So its really not different from how the mainstream media operates on TV.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Very interesting. I'll stop reading now to think about this donut visual a bit. Thanks.

Thought #1....expl­oding donuts...

[GhostwriterDoF]

Jay, your explanations are enlightening. What about the pursuit of truth and justice or the importance of the Public Trust? Are they so vain to believe that the consensus should not be included in the debate, or can form its own conclusions? I guess they forgot they’re supposed to be bringing the debate to the kitchen table.

The teleprompter readers aren’t the only ones who got too engaged by their own self importance while the voices of Journalism got lost in the prestige of the past. They neglected to remember the Purpose behind the Tradition, and lost the heart to fight the good fight.

Where was the Power of the Press when the corrupt financiers took over and put a Brand on your independent voices? Did the Press put up a fight, or did they avoid asking questions that made their sponsors uncomfortable?

This isn’t the first time Journalism has fallen from grace. They need to snap out of it and start doing their jobs. When the Journalists stop serving the interests of their sponsors, the people will begin to trust in them to find the answers to our most pressing questions, and resolutions to today’s heinous transgressions. These are the very times that turn things around.

Until Journalists return to representing the integrity that is Journalism, we can expect to see more Joe the Journalists taking it upon themselves to try and do their jobs. If they’re not careful, they’ll find themselves on the outside of the inner-circles.