Letters to the Editor

• Norms and collective action problems in the Media

  [Read the article: Little outbursts of journalism -- what causes them?]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Glenn,

  I've been pondering the problematic media for a bit and this is what I've come up with:

  If we examine a particularly obvious element of flawed journalism, which is the frequent use of anonymous government sources who are only revealing pro-government information clearly at the behest of their superiors, the problem quickly becomes evident as a classic economical collective action problem, or even a prisoner's dilemma.

  If I, as a White House reporter get a visit from Karl Rove, who says, "If you promise not to quote me by name, I will give you some information" I can choose to say yes or no. Assume I am ethical and say "I only grant anonymity to sources revealing information that could get them punished, so if this information is something the President would be angry you told me, I will keep your name out of the story, otherwise, no dice"

  Upon hearing this, Rove will simply clam up, and move to the more junior reporter next to me, who says to himself "wow, a rove scoop, this will really help my career!" and takes it and dutifully stenographs it to the public as a "scoop"

  So the result of my ethical action has only hurt me, and Rove still got his story planted. If I repeat this behaviour often enough, my editor might decide to fire me because I never get any scoops, but my junior colleague is full of them.

  The result is a race to the bottom, with reporters actually competing to get access to government insiders, even if all they are getting from them is pro-government spin.

  Repeat this analysis for the subject of asking difficult and challenging questions at press briefings and you will see a similar race. Reporters who ask tough questions do not get called on, do not get scoops and tend to get moved to other assignments unless they have the legendary stature of Helen Thomas.

  So one may ask, if this is true, why did it happen only now, in the past 10 years or so. Why were the media at least somewhat effective watchdogs (at least they were "more" effective even if not satisfactorily so for any particular reader) for prior administrations?

  To that I answer with the idea of social norms. For many years, the social norm for reporters was to ask hostile questions and to refuse anonymous pro-government sourcing in articles. A reporter wasn't all that brave to do these things since many other reporters around him were also doing it. You couldn't be "singled out" for hammering the President in a presser, since your colleagues would do the same. In fact, other reporters would likely mock and deride a reporter who was too much of a suck up to the Administration, creating an active incentive to behave like Helen Thomas rather than Hugh Hewitt.

  It is much like how a public area that is clean of litter will tend to stay clean of litter. Once a small amount of litter is dropped, very quickly a lot more will be. The norm of not littering in a clean space is broken by any litter, which signals to many that littering is acceptable there. After all, even if you are the type to chastise someone for littering, you are much more likely to do it when they litter in a pristine area, rather than on a polluted one.

  I think much the same thing has happened to the press, some of it brought on of course on purpose by the Murdochs and other willfully damaging elements who do not desire an active and adversarial press. However, once the norm of not asking tough questions was broken, and one could get special treatment from the administration by being friendly to them, it quickly became a race.

  So what is the solution?

  Typically, with any collective action problem, enforceable rules are required. Would that mean an "American Journalism Association" similar to the AMA or Bar associations that monitor the professional conduct of doctors and lawyers? Maybe, I am still pondering how that could be made to work without too many unintended consequences and also keeping such a body safe from manipulation of the Murdochs of the world.

  The alternate hope is to merely reestablish the norm of not kowtowing to the administration. That the mere widespread social stigma of being an administration toadstool will prevent reporters from behaving this way.

  The actions of Glenn and other media watchdog bloggers serve to work towards this second solution. I hope they are successful, but I am increasingly tempted to think we should try the formal regulatory approach and formally disincent journalists from the most egregious of behaviours we've seen in the recent past.

  If a vibrant and active community of bloggers voicing loud disapproval at each journalistic ethical broach is sufficient to keep them in line, all the better of course. But such approaches are not sufficient for Doctors and Lawyers which is why they have standards bodies to punish them when they take bribes from pharmaceutical companies or fall asleep in court instead of defending their clients.

  I would appreciate your comment on this idea Glenn, as I am not a lawyer so I have little experience with such institutions. I do know that at one time, being a "lawyer" just meant you could read and were willing to take money from people to make their case in court. Formal qualifications and exams grew out of the abuses of that era no doubt.

  Permalink Friday, July 13, 2007 09:14 AM

• Afghanistan

  [Read the article: Little outbursts of journalism -- what causes them?]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  So your point is that we should now invade Pakistan? Or that invading Afghanistan (who didn't attack us) WAS warranted?

  Huh? The Taliban were actively sheltering Al Qaeda, who did attack the US. That's a reasonable causus beli.

  Do you just throw anything out there and hope no one will call you on it?

  Permalink Friday, July 13, 2007 02:09 PM