Journalists Face Off In 'Great Debate' On Media Credibility

by Samuel J. Scott

Boston University Journalism Chair Professor Ranald Macdonald chaired the debate, which saw journalists from the New York Times, ABC News and MSNBC face off against their critics in the BU College of Communications' sixth "Great Debate."

In the tradition of formal debates at Oxford and Cambridge, Macdonald wore a magnificent, flowing red robe, sharply contrasting with the dark suits and casual look favored by the speakers.

"Our debate tonight is relevant, it's important, it's even crucial. It is about the news, it is about journalists, and it is about credibility," Macdonald proclaimed as he opened the proceedings before an audience of more than 500 people. The rules gave the first speakers for each side 15 minutes, and the nezt two alternately seven and eight minutes each.

"Who is a journalist?" he asked, his voice filled with energy and passion. "Every aching, arthritic bone and cartilage in my aging body cries out against the idea that Limbaugh, Liddy and the rest are all journalists. But I will tell you that I know that there are millions of Americans ... who believe what Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy and Pat Buchanan say to be more believable than what Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings [say]," he lamented.

With the onset of the Internet, he said that the appellation "journalist" has sunk to a new low. To Siegenthaler, any person who can create a Web page can now call himself a journalist.

"There are those on the political left ... who find Geraldo Rivera and Charles Grodin ... and Geraldine Ferraro more believable than Richard Burton of the New York Times ... who cover[s] politics," he continued, raising his voice for effect. "They are not journalists!" Seigenthaler exclaimed as he strode across the stage.

"This country is at odds with itself ... and many people believe what the media says on the basis of what they, in their minds, want it to say," he said as he looked the students and adults seated in the seats.

Lowering his voice, Seigenthaler said that we live in a nation of deep cynicism, where people look for the coffin when they see flowers.

"We are here today to talk about whether the mainstream media is credible and believable, and I assert that they are," he said.

Then Seigenthaler turned to face the journalists sitting quietly to the left of Macdonald. Pointing at the two teams, he said that if the media is not to be trusted and if it is not credible, then it is pointless for them to be journalists.

Turning to the audience and a group of students on one side of Morse Auditorium, Seigenthaler said that if that were not the case, every one of them is wasting their time in studying journalism.

Krulwich's plane was delayed for a half-hour before the debate, causing a brief postponement. But he displayed a sly sense of humor, opening with a funny story about New York City taxis and airports. But he suddenly turned serious as he got up from his chair and walked to center stage.

"You cannot believe what journalists report as news, when you open up a magazine or open up a newspaper ... what you read is hopelessly tainted," he said.

But he stopped short of saying that the media is a bunch of liars and cannot be trusted. Krulwich said that "your parents, your lovers, your acquaintances, your parents and your teachers, they also tell [stories]." Just as people take everything people say in context and by situation, so should readers, he said. With that, he told a story about two teenagers in the back seat of a car.

"You're 15 years old, you're a women, you're in the back seat of a car. There's a 16-year-old guy next to you with his hand on your chest," Krulwich started. He violently swung his arm across his body and placed his hand on his upper chest, drawing laughter from the whole auditorium.

"He leans over and whispers the words, 'I love you' into your ear. If you take his words at face value, that could be a problem. But if you start questioning him back by saying, 'Wait! What do you mean?' or 'Why did you say that?' then he will start to become nervous. But if you have the same reaction much later in life, standing in front of an altar with his hand at your side, that would also be a problem," he laughed.

All media must be considered in context, with suspicion, the way that people would take common gossip.

"All story-telling must come in context," Krulwich said.

Poking fun at the recent media coverage of hurricanes, he stood on stage pretending to hold a tree as imagined wind and rain pulled him from it, shouting "It's raining a little bit here. Back to you, Ted!" Gales of laughter erupted from the crowd.

As the audience grew quiet again, Krulwich said in closing that he wants to hear from as many media people as possible so he can make decisions and so he could learn what is truth for himself.

1998 has not been a good year for journalism, he admitted.

"[People] feel as if yet another institution has betrayed [them but] we are not [really] in a journalistic crisis," he said.

But modern journalism is excellent compared to mistakes in the past, Demerle said, citing the sensationalism of the late 19th Century. He cited incidents like the Chicago Tribune's report that Dewey had defeated Truman for President after World War II, and another paper's claim that the Titanic had not sunk after hitting an iceberg.

"Maybe," he argued, accentuating every word and pacing back and forth like a lawer talking to a jury, "Journalists today are making the same number of mistakes but they are being reported by a greater and increasing number of media."

"[The media] can't afford to be wrong," he said in closing, citing the increasing number of lawsuits and their increasing dependence on advertisers to serve as checks on the media. No one will read a paper which is sensationalistic or which does not tell the truth, Demerle said.

Boston University College of Communication student Cynthia Phillips posed the next question: "Where has all the news gone?" In a dark blue shirt under a black suit, she paused while the audience wondered what she meant.Then she spoke the word everyone was probably hoping she would not: "Monica."

"Are we to believe that no news has happened in Washington in the past nine months?" she demanded. She said modern journalists were lazy and easy to manipulate, describing their reliance on press releases, anonymous sources, "spin doctors" and wire services.

Hearkening to the traditional purpose of the media, Phillips said that "journalism is supposed to teach people something." She said the dreaded word again and wondered what Americans were learning from stories of cigars and interns.

Modern journalists obsess over one story and "do a poor job as agenda-setters," she said -- people have to roll dice to decide which journalist to believe on any given day.

Comparing modern journalism to World Wrestling Federation wrestling, she dismissed Demerle's argument that no one would be interested in uncredible media. Like wrestling, people now watch it for entertainment even though they know that it is fake, she said.

Susie Nam, a Features Editor for the New York Times Electronic Media Company, followed Phillips by declaring that "truth exists, and always will exist. Journalism is a perfect hybrid between philosophy and trade."

Nam said that the minor setbacks this year, ranging from CNN's Tailwind story to the Boston Globe's dismissal of Mike Barnicle and Patricia Smith, are very rare events. The media's present policy of self-policing is very effective, she asserted. The media have a great interest in policing their own so they do not lose their audience.

"Journalists are all from the same tribe," shae said, pausing in thought as she crossed the stage. "[They] like to tell a good story, and [they] know that a good story needs to be true. Without truth, there is no basis for journalism."

Speaking forcefully, Davis sharply criticized the fact that the majority of editors and producers are white. From ther audience came a few muted calls of 'Shame!' She continued undistracted. "I would like to think that we are all from the same tribe," she said, referring to Nam, "but we're not."

After five audience members made quick comments, the two leaders of each side, Krulwich and Seigenthaler offered closing statements. Krulwich first.

"I want to emphasize that I want people to believe what the media tell them -- not too much, not not at all," he said with a hint of weariness. People should give the same credibility to the media that they would give to ordinary people, no more and no less.

"Credibility is all reporters have," he ended.

The passionate Seigenthaler spoke last. Slowly rising from his chair, he took a sip of water and walked over to the opposing side and stood in front of their table, his back to the audience, and put his hand on Davis' shoulder.

He was sorry to hear so much cynicism and negativity from their side, he said. Turning around, a serious expression on his face, he walked to stage center. The supposedly tired old man, whose idealism some had begun to mock, then proceeded to give a spirited defense of the First Amendment that would have made Thomas Jefferson proud.

He said that two proposed amendments to the Constitution and one law, which Congress had been considering, would have rewritten the First Amendment. He cited the school prayer amendment, the anti-flag burning amendment and the campaign finance measure as being censorship.

After proclaiming that view, he pointed to the opposing side and declared that cynicism such as theirs has led to such proposals. Unless people realize that the media is doing a good job, he said, freedom of speech and the press will be lost. He sat down to respectful applause.

Then Macdonald, in his flowing robe, asked audience members who believe journalists can be trusted to gather on one side of the auditorium, and those who believe they cannot be trusted to gather on the other.

Five hundred people milled about, deciding, and a few minutes later Macdonald announced the winners.

The non-believers were a "substantial majority," he said.