Don't break the left, fix the media

Many have argued that Kerry's campaign strategy was insufficiently Machiavellian. As the argument goes, the left needs to learn to operate more like the right. We need to repeat focus group-tested talking points instead of engaging in true dialogue about issues that matter to us. Above all, these critics claim we need to stop trying to inform people at all and put all of our efforts into manipulating them.

The right has done this spectacularly. They have constructed their own alternative reality by repeating talking points. In their internally consistent but fictional universe, Iraq had WMDs and was supporting Al Qaeda, while Bush is a moral leader who has been effective at planning, governing, or maybe just "getting things done." A PIPA study found that large majorities of Bush supporters still believe both false justifications for the Iraq war, and in response to a "hypothetical" question of whether we should have gone to war without these justifications, a majority of Bush supporters said no.

Given what was in (actual) reality a disastrous performance in his first term, Bush's re-election is strong evidence for the effectiveness of the alternative reality strategy. The question we should be asking is not how to do this ourselves, but why this strategy worked. How could they possibly get away with such bald-faced lies and distortions?

What can we do about it? It would do no good to boycott Fox News or conservative talk radio stations - they're fully aware that liberals are not their audience.

The reason it worked is not to be found in what they did or how they did it, but in how the mainstream media responded or failed to respond. The solution is simple and old-fashioned, and it is within our power to achieve it through a movement that pressures mainstream media outlets one at a time. The solution, in a word, is journalism.

Objectivity is not even-handedness

Our mainstream media doesn't do real journalism, because they confuse even-handedness with objectivity. Objectivity does not mean being unbiased or balanced. Objectivity actually means being very strongly biased towards the truth, regardless of which political side it happens to be on for any given story.

True objectivity requires a good faith effort to determine the truth. If either side appears to be lying, an objective journalist will be very forcefully against that side. Only if the situation seems indeterminate will an objective journalist present both sides as balanced.

Our mainstream news media balances almost everything. When they say they're objective they really mean they're even handed. No matter how easy it would be to resolve a contradiction by simple fact checking, they still report both sides as if they are equally valid. As a result of this even-handedness, the right can deny anything, no matter how much evidence there is, and will still be treated as if their position is equally valid.

For many people, because of this false balance the entire political world seems indeterminate. Is global warming happening? Views differ. Did Bush lead us into a war based on justifications that he knew or should have known were false? According to the mainstream media, this depends on your perspective. In fact, these are questions of objective reality that journalism should work to clarify for the public, instead of allowing political campaigns to muddy them up in order to prevent democracy from working properly.

Why does the media do this? In part, because it's cheaper. A good faith effort to find truth is sometimes very time-consuming and can require input from multiple experts. Reporting what both sides said is a simple matter of copy and paste. For the skeleton crews in today's "efficient" corporate newsrooms, balanced reporting is all they have time to do on most stories.

A long-term solution

However, false balance also happens because media organizations think it's less likely to upset people and reduce ratings. If we can reverse this perception, we might be able to make them change. We need to convince the media that we're not offended by hearing arguments or evidence against our political side, and that we are offended by hearing false balance between contradictory statements, especially when the contradiction could easily be resolved by journalists doing their homework.

Machiavellian progressives (if you really exist) take heart: there is a manipulative aspect to this. This shift can only be achieved by reframing: a form of manipulation the right is very good at. We need to reframe the discourse of media objectivity versus bias as a discourse about objectivity versus even-handedness. If we can do this, conservatives who argue that media stories are often biased against them will have to confront the implication that this is because they lie more often.

I believe the left should win when and only when we deserve to win. Given a level playing field, I believe we will win. Most Americans agree with progressive positions on most issues. Choosing manipulation over reality may help us in the current almost journalism-free mainstream, but it may not. We might not be able to beat the Republicans at their game. The long-term solution, the only morally correct solution, and the most useful thing we can do about this until the next campaign starts are all the same thing: try to revive journalism.