Published: August 25, 2008 10:25 pm            

CURRAN: Open eyes and minds; Edwards story shines light on truth telling

I admit it. I’m a snob. The only time I read supermarket tabloids is while in the supermarket and then it’s only the covers.

I laugh and shake my head. Never have I walked away convinced anyone really has anorexia, a drug habit, a baby bump or that they cheated on their spouse.

It may be time to rethink that attitude.

There is an understood distinction between credible, traditional media and the more fringe reports that come from tabloids and the so-called new media of the Internet. In theory, traditional media sources work hard to corroborate information, vet sources and use some discretion in ethical considerations about the people’s right to know and whether a story really deserves attention. There is also an assumption the media are supposed to be objective.

Alternative media sources are branded as sensationalistic and rash. News hits the Internet so rapidly, there is little time to verify the information. Anyone can produce a blog. They can’t be trusted. Tabloid magazines and television shows highlight the most sensational information focusing on celebrities and gossip. An informed person can ignore them because they can get all the real news from the newspapers and nightly news.

Students in high school and college are required to have credible sources when writing papers and presentations. The New York Times is considered a valid source, a paper of record. The National Enquirer is not.

Enter John Edwards fooling around. The National Enquirer broke the story in 2007, while Edwards was still a presidential candidate, that he had an affair with a woman who produced videos for his campaign. With the exception of one question from one outlet which provided Edwards an opportunity to deny the allegations, the story was left alone by the traditional media. As everyone now knows, the Enquirer was right.

This isn’t the first time the tabloid beat the more respected guys. Remember Rush Limbaugh’s addiction to lard, I mean hate, I mean OxyContin? How about a presidential hopeful named Gary Hart? And it was Web site The Drudge Report that was the first to tell the world about Monica Lewisky’s blue dress that may have contained presidential DNA.

One could argue these types of stories aren’t real news. Do we really care about politicians’ and media personalities’ personal lives? When someone is running for public office, character is always an issue, and a guy who would cheat on his wife then lie about it while presenting himself as a moral person is certainly some character. Limbaugh, unfortunately, influences the political and social opinions of many people including those with the power to vote and do other harm. If he is a pill-popping hypocrite, that information can only help society.

In these cases in which it is the falls of individuals being reported, the broader implications are fairly limited. Our opinion of that guy is changed as are, too infrequently, his fortunes. We may all become a little more jaded in our feelings towards those with power. However, the broader implications of traditional media failing to listen to certain voices because they are not distinguished enough reach much further.

As a journalism and political science student, I cannot count the number of times the supposed gatekeeper function of the media came up in class lectures. The idea is, the media don’t tell us what to think, but they do tell us what to think about. Before a major political decision is made, the issue being legislated has generally been on the policy agenda for awhile. The policy agenda is a list of those things that have been deemed problems. In a perfect democracy, these items would be placed on the agenda because there is broad public concern. Often, they’re only taken up because a handful of people able to get media attention are concerned.

The press is supposed to be a primary vehicle for the public to gain information on the problems and, once those problems have been highlighted, pressure officials to act. Policy outputs should be fair, not burdening one segment of society for the benefit of another. In a majority-rules democracy, policies certainly shouldn’t be tailor-made for a small segment while burdening the much larger group, but we all know that happens.

If the press, which is given special protection and status in our democracy because it is believed they perform a special function within a democracy, is less than open-minded or vigilant when it comes to pursuing stories the voting public really does need to know about, our democracy suffers. There is strong evidence traditional media tend to focus on the more high-profile voices while ignoring others. There have been accusations concerning the Edward’s story that the press ignored the story intentionally due to a left-leaning bias. If that’s really the explanation, where was Fox News?

More likely, like Edwards himself, the traditional press, too, has become narcissistic. How could that rag know something we don’t? We asked; he said, “no;” surely a politician wouldn’t lie to us. The Enquirer makes stuff up. Other than those times we’ve been caught making stuff up, we don’t do that.

Surely, if truth is what we’re seeking and listening for, we have to be careful in limiting where we’ll look and to whom we listen.

Jeffersonville snob Kelley Curran was recently accused of reading an entire supermarket tabloid. She denies it but the National Enquirer says they have proof. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.