Political centrism and journalism
Brendan Nyhan at Columbia Journalism Review reminds us to be careful about debating budget priorities:
How should the United States choose among the difficult tradeoffs it faces in setting the federal budget? There’s no one correct answer, but you wouldn’t know it from coverage of the budget deal between Senator Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan, which passed the Senate last night and will soon be signed into law.
Under the norm of objectivity that dominates mainstream political journalism in the United States, reporters are supposed to avoid endorsing competing political viewpoints or proposals. In practice, however, journalists often treat centrist policy priorities—especially on fiscal policy—as value-neutral. That’s wrong. While it’s widely accepted that the federal government faces limits on what it can borrow in the financial markets, there is significant disagreement, including among experts, over the priority that should be given to reducing current deficit and debt levels relative to other possible policy objectives. It is, in other words, a political issue.
…The same pattern often crops up in the sourcing for budget stories. I’ve questioned the media’s insistence on “he said,” “she said” reporting about matters of fact, but there’s no reason to think that centrist deficit hawks have a monopoly on wisdom about the nation’s federal budget priorities. So why are the claims of groups like the Concord Coalition or the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget presented in articles like Montgomery’s and Lightman’s as neutral, non-ideological perspectives that don’t need to be balanced with offsetting quotes from other points of view? The same deference is rarely given either to conservatives who want more aggressive cuts in the size of government or liberals who would give greater priority to public spending.
The root of these problems is the philosophy of “objective” journalism itself, which forces reporters to try to draw lines between opinion and fact that often blur in real life. But even if reporters aren’t willing to rethink objectivity, they should try to understand why prioritizing deficit reduction over other competing values is a kind of ideology of its own
Along the lines of “physician heal thy self, note the following.
“…..but there’s no reason to think that centrist deficit hawks have a monopoly on wisdom about the nation’s federal budget priorities. So why are the claims of groups like the Concord Coalition or the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget presented in articles like Montgomery’s and Lightman’s as neutral, non-ideological perspectives that don’t need to be balanced with offsetting quotes from other points of view?”
Though I certainly view CJR as the go to site for critical review of the journalism industry, Mr. Nyhan seems to have fallen into the very trap that he is complaining about. When did the Concord Coalition and CRFB morph into “centrist” ideologists? Both are off springs of the Peter Peterson right wing funding apparatus and masquerade as professional scholarly institutions while propagandizing all of Mr. Peterson’s pet ideals. To see either organization as centrist is to accept the new far right as the norm.
Jack,
I read it as Montgomery and Lightman presenting them as centrist.
Dan,
I can see that reading as plausible, but I’m not certain of the interpretation. I think more likely it is Nyhan using the description of centrist deficit hawks and then criticizing M&L for suggesting that such a centrist sub-category is “… neutral, non-ideological perspectives that don’t need to be balanced with offsetting quotes from other points of view?”
So the error occurs twice. First Concord and Fix the Debt are described as centrist, albeit as deficit hawks, and then a second time when those organizations are portrayed as neutral and non-ideological. In fact they are only ideological and well to the right of center to boot. No one could ever accuse the Peterson column for not being extremely clever in how it plays the deceit and deception game. It’s all very scholarly and non-partisan, except that it’s not.