Many Sides to Every Story

As a journalist, I've long been aware of the low regard the public affords my profession. As a media critic myself, and one who launches many verbal attacks on the companies that control the traditional mainstream media, I probably add in some small way to general perception that journalism in our time is flawed.

So, it may seem counter-intuitive that I continue to think of my trade as a noble one. So many special interests maintain that they see a "liberal bias" in the press, or a "conservative bias." Conspiracy theorists invariably group "the media" into their fantasies, regardless of which other elements make up their story.

I am told, variously, that media are controlled by "multinational corporations," "MBA's," "Jews," "puppets," "sellouts," and "wannabe politicians." Trouble is, none of that rings true with my experience. The best evidence available suggests in fact that nobody controls the media.

Start with the people who actually do the work -- reporters. Anyone who thinks it is easy to tell a reporter what to do has never tried to. Inside our craft, those of us who produce original reporting are notoriously cranky and resistant to authority. Our training is at the core of our nature -- we seriously seek to root out every aspect of whatever story we cover.

The most critical aspect of journalistic methodology is learning how to become your own worst devil's advocate, i.e., how to be self-conscious enough about your own set of biases and unexamined assumptions to prevent them from coloring your work. This isn't easy (try it sometime), and most of us, being mere mortals, fail more often than we succeed.

But what is noble about the profession is that most of us try to be fair.

***

In this context, I recently read an article from The New York Times Sunday Magazine that demonstrated some of the values described above. I rarely find anything to read in the current iteration of that particular magazine; it seems to be edited for people unlike me or anyone I know.

But in the case of Ronald Lowenstein"s "Entitled to What?" (May 4, 2008), I discovered a gem. It's a very short story, less than one page of text. In it, Lowenstein analyzed the three major Presidential candidates' views on one of most important (if least mentioned) issues facing the nation: The future of social security and Medicare.

John McCain wants to reduce entitlement spending, including the possibility of cutting social security benefits. He has proposed offering a universal health credit but then make employer health plans taxable.

Clinton has proposed a national 401(k) plan, with the government matching the first $500-1,000 a worker sets aside. The idea is to provide incentive to lower income people to save for their retirement.

Obama also wants to require employers to enroll employees in 401(k) plans, and withhold 3 percent of their salaries in order to stimulate the equivalent of a national retirement system. Employees could still opt out, or choose a higher savings rate.

None of these three is proposing the traditional "New Deal" of a bygone era. All favor using market incentives to change people's behavior. McCain wants to contain costs, and end the fiction that health care is "free." The two Democrats want to persuade more people to become savers in this nation of debtors.

Elements of all three plans have merit. Yet you almost never hear any of this discussed on the campaign trail. Try as I might, I can find no trace of obvious bias in Lowenstein's article; he is respectful toward all three plans.

I realize this article might seem "boring" to many people, accustomed as they are to the infotainment that often passes for journalism in this era. But to me it represents the best journalists have to offer -- a concise, fair analysis of a critical issue that affects all of us, our children and grandchildren, free from bias or agenda.

And if that isn't noble in these troubles times, I'm at a loss to identify something that is.

-30-