The mission of the MSM

We've commented in the past about MSM preparations for the 100th Canadian death in Afghanistan, which blessedly hasn't come to pass yet. And yes, I've just touched wood.

But thanks to Tony Prudori of MILNEWS.ca, posting at the invaluable Army.ca, we get a glimpse into the reasoning that goes on behind such grisly preparations. Morgan Passi, writing at the Ryerson Review of Journalism takes up the story:

Lynda Shorten, executive producer for CBC Radio’s As It Happens, exits a news meeting upset. After a wave of deaths among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, management at the public broadcaster is asking: What are we going to do for the 100th death?

Almost a month later, I’m in her office. I’ve worked at the show and know Shorten to be a confident woman. Right now, however, she is so bothered by the thought of covering the 100th death that she fumbles her words and cannot look me in the eye. She recognizes the symbolic meaning of 100 but worries about turning a human being into a number. By doing so, she says, “you somehow diminish the death of number 53, 54, number 72, and it turns the death toll in Afghanistan into something approaching a score in a game.”

There’s the irony. Although the death of the 100th Canadian soldier is heartbreaking, it’s also terribly convenient. News organizations have a perfect opportunity to highlight the Afghan crisis. When the death toll breaks the triple-digit barrier, the country will be listening. But with such a captive audience comes the responsibility of covering the 100th soldier’s story without discounting the other 99. [Babbler's emphasis]

I'm not going to bother hashing out all my previous arguments about how and why the MSM is going at this coverage all wrong, and why it bothers so many of us. If you're interested, I'd suggest you read what I wrote last month. Suffice to say that the fact that they're making a bigger deal out of the 100th than all the others automatically discounts the other 99. Instead, I'd like to point you to commenter Kirkhill at Army.ca, and an interesting line of thought he puts forward:

As journalists, which I define as the core of a News organization, their job IMHO, is most explicitly NOT to "try to make sense of things". Their job is that of data gathering. They are the Recce troops of society. Who, What, Where, When, Why. Wrong. Who, What, Where, When, How.

How describes the trail. Why condones speculation. And that speculation is what drives the story line and the story line drives both political and sales agendas.

And that brings us to Why (it is to speculate, Horatio) a News organization needs "a project, planning and development manager". If his job is just to have on hand adequate resources to maintain a field force and a reserve to react to the crisis of the day than great. I understand planning. I don't understand the need for "project development" - which I suspect seeks out stories and predetermines a story line in order to advance either of the aforementioned agendas.

It's a well articulated argument, and but for one real flaw, I'd love to see it attempted: you can't remove the opinions of the reporter from the reporting.

Look at Kirkhill's recce analogy. It falls down upon scrutiny because of one word: mission. The recce troops know that they're not just looking, they're looking with a purpose, which is to help the mission succeed. That gives them a point of view. The information they bring back to their chain of command isn't designed to inform the commander impartially, it's designed to help the commander accomplish his mission.

Send out an insurance inspector, an artistic photographer, and an infantryman to report back to you on a farmhouse objective. The first will tell you about the condition of the buildings and potential hazard areas that could be improved upon from a potential insurance loss standpoint, the second will likely give you impressions of colour and contrast and shape and atmosphere that would contribute to a good location for a photo shoot, and the last will tell you how you could assault it or defend it.

Different missions mean different information is considered relevant, even important.

Reporters, editors, producers all make value judgments on what is newsworthy and what isn't each and every day. That's editorializing of a very subtle but influential sort, and it can't be removed from the journalistic process no matter how much we'd like to. What I think many journalists refuse to acknowledge is that the information they choose to gather and disseminate speaks volumes about what they consider their mission to be.

So, given the fact that journalists can't give up their point of view in their reporting, what's the solution? I'd say it's to come clean with their own biases, their own preconceptions, their own mission. Then let their audience read or watch or listen to their reporting through that filter.

Let's get back to what Kirkhill wrote with that in mind:

I understand planning. I don't understand the need for "project development" - which I suspect seeks out stories and predetermines a story line in order to advance either of the aforementioned agendas.

What offends me about the '100th death' preparations isn't the fact that it's 'project development'. We've just established that you can't take that out of journalism. What offends me is what project they've chosen to develop, what they've chosen to ignore, and what it says about their mission.

So to all my journalist readers (except the few who get it - you know who you are): don't throw up your hands and tell me some as yet unknown Canadian soldier's death is more newsworthy because of a number attached to it. Dig a bit deeper and tell me what you're hoping to gain, to bring to light by making a big deal of that death. And then tell me why you can't tell that same story without the death attached to it.

Be sure to get off your high horse and look in a mirror before you do.