At the beginning of the Republican National Convention last week, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer confronted
presidential nominee Donald Trump about dialing down the intensity of the
passions percolating at the event. “Would you be willing to make a pledge to
speak to everyone involved in this convention and say, ‘Please tone down the
rhetoric’?” Lauer urged. “Can you say to the people who are going to take to
that podium this week, ‘No personal attacks, no vitriol, keep it civil’?”
The irony there is that political journalists themselves, Lauer included,
have become as inflammatory as the politicians they lecture about incivility.
In the aftermath of last month’s Orlando terrorist massacre at a gay nightclub,
for example, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper badgered the increasingly offended Attorney
General of Florida interminably about her stance on gay marriage. More
recently, Fox News’ Shepherd Smith berated Gov. Bobby Jindal for using the “divisive”
phrase “All lives matter.” CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who wears her biases as
openly as her keffiyeh, hammered away
contentiously at British MP Daniel Hannan for nine minutes over the recent Brexit
vote.
Then there are the battles royal among the ubiquitous panels of TV
pundits. Geraldo Rivera, who is as responsible for creating this toxic
atmosphere as anyone, nearly came to blows on-camera last year with The Five co-host Eric Bolling. Don’t
forget the mean-spirited partisan commentary from purported political comedians
like Joy Behar, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher. Some of it may entertain, but none
of it enlightens and all of it divides.
This is not a new development. Already by 1996, twenty years ago,
Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin pointed out in a keynote address that
across America and the world, “no one questions the premise that political
debate has become too extreme, too confrontational, too coarse.” In 1999 law
professor Stephen Carter complained in his book Civility that Americans were losing the ability to debate
respectfully.
Five years ago the University of Arizona was so concerned about our
political incivility that it established the National Institute for Civil
Discourse to promote “healthy and civil political debate.” Apparently the
organization’s message cannot be heard above the din of political brawling,
because the problem has only snowballed, culminating in this especially rude
and raucous current election season.
How did it come to this? How did our national conversation about politics
become so degraded and hostile? The most obvious explanation is ratings. Ratings
is the name of the television game, and polite, respectful, reasoned debates do
not translate into soaring Nielsen numbers. As far back as 1968, with the
unprecedentedly venomous convention debates between William
Buckley and Gore Vidal, networks
discovered that such combative interaction meant record ratings. Controversial
personalities, heated crosstalk, personal feuds, angry insults, “gotcha”
journalism – these all present an hypnotic appeal to the lowest common
denominator of viewers, and the infection has spread from there.
Television brought this hostile tone into millions of homes, turning up
the heat from a simmer to a boil, ultimately goading us into shouting insults
at each other instead of respectfully seeking understanding and compromise. Add
the rise of social media to the mix – Twitter, for example, is an absolute
sewer of political viciousness – and you have a cultural environment utterly
inimical to the formation of that “informed citizenry” which Thomas Jefferson
believed indispensable to the proper functioning of a republic.
Another factor is the abandonment of journalistic neutrality. There was a
time in living memory when reporters were expected to hold themselves to at
least the pretense of a standard of objectivity. Too many of them now have
openly embraced the disastrous trend of “advocacy journalism” and see their
role in politics not as objective reporters of the facts but as activists on a
mission. That encourages them to aggressively challenge politicians and pundits
whom they see as opponents.
This blatant partisanship is one of the reasons viewers now hold the mainstream
news media in such angry contempt (which accounts for a good portion of Donald
Trump’s popularity; rather than court a hostile news media like previous
Republican presidential candidates, Trump, a reality show hitmaker who knows a
thing or two about grabbing ratings, has declared war on them).
Where is civil political journalism to be found anymore – or has that
ship sailed for good? Is it passé and
naïve now to expect journalists on either side of the aisle to maintain some
measure of objectivity and civility? What will it take to dial down their
vitriol, as Matt Lauer pleaded, and help keep our political discourse civil?
It begins with each one of us committing to civil political discourse in
our own personal lives and rejecting the media’s emotional manipulation and
unhealthy partisanship. Television journalists need incentive to change and
that means hitting them where it hurts – in their ratings. As a society we must
hold them to standards of fairness, truth, and civility. We must demand that
commentators and reporters engage our intellect rather than inflame our anger. Of
course we want them to ask the tough questions; their job should be to report
the facts and to speak truth to power, not bow in deference or push an agenda.
But they must take their egos and personal politics out of the equation. Our
political future and our cultural harmony depend on it.
From Acculturated, 7/25/16
