Here.
Ezra Klein, with The American Prospect gives another (partial) explanation for the Media's narrative bias (if you want the history, and have the time, this is narrative bias). In a post, "The Repetition Gap," he writes:
When you're coming up with story ideas, "what's new" is always the first question you're asked. But on a blog, by making the same arguments in response to different news pegs and events, you're actually much more effective at conveying your points. Few writers are so persuasive, and few arguments so instantly convincing, that one bite at the apple will transform the thinking of your audience.
in short, the argument is journalists ought to start giving the context to their stories, instead of assuming that their audience will have read the articles necessary for the context of the story in question. He continues:
If you ask a newspaper reporter why they don't say X (where "X" disproves some political lie or falsehood), they'll point you to an article saying X from two months ago. But that article has been forgotten. The question is why they don't remind voters of X every time candidates say not-X. Testing politician's statements against objective reality should not be an occasional feature. It should be the very point and purpose of campaign reportage, the reason those articles are on page A1 day after day after day.
I agree with this sentiment, but I think by applying this idea to the media's own coverage, we can give the public a chance to directly question the background assumptions implicit in the media's coverage.
If the media is required to explain why they believe a story relevant, in essence, provide justification for their coverage, then the public would be able to assess better if they agree with the normative claims implicit in the media's coverage. Furthermore, by directly addressing those background assumptions, the media might (and this is a big might here) actually see some of the more absurd narratives for what they are: you know, absurd.
Right now the news makes a claim, p, and says, if p then q. But what the media doesn't say is that claims a, b, c, n are needed as support for p. They end up talking about q non-stop, completely skipping over the necessary justification for those claims.
The notion of repetition as a way of holding politicians accountable for what they say is, of course, wonderful and important. And maybe, once journalists get in the habit of recognizing the history of their narratives and reporting on it (for the sake of holding politicians accountable), they'll start applying those same techniques to their own reporting.
|