Demophoenix provides an excellent overall critique of the contemporary American media just below. He describes the failures of the contemporary journalistic grail of “balance”—which is almost a new logical fallacy. Rhetoric teachers have long taught the errors of “either/or” or “false choice” argumentation: Are you currently beating your wife or have you stopped? Do we privatize Social Security or let the system go broke in 2042? If you died today, would you go to Heaven or to Hell? Such questions imply that the truth must be one or the other in situations where other possibilities exist.
The new journalistic standard Demophoenix describes tries to split the difference between the false choices and call that Truth. But where exactly does this truth lie? What is the middle ground between beating your wife and stopping, between Social Security going broke in 2042 and privatization, between Heaven and Hell?
The Amarillo Globe-Republican provided us with an excellent local example of the specific dangers of this flawed reportage this morning. In a front-page article titled “Water issue boils over at city hall,” reporter Joe Chapman described accusations made by former City Commissioner John McKissack about water. According to Chapman, he
accused the panel of having "locked arms with" T. Boone Pickens' company Mesa Water Inc. and said the commission members should be ashamed.McKissack, according to the article, also stated that only three candidates—Hodger the Dodger, Jim “What a coup!” Simms, and Madison Scott—had approached him, as a board member of the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District, to ask about the water situation. Of course, the current Commissioners and Sisemore all denied all these accusations and Chapman dutifully wrote up their denials. The article carried more gossipy back-and-forth about who was in bed with whom than a musical comedy about the Chicken Ranch. For once, the Globe-Republican was balanced as all hell.
But substance? Not so much. If the Globe-Republican has discussed which candidate has a history of making deals with Pickens (Hodger—Masterson natural gas), or which candidate has a history of selling off large swaths of Amarillo (Simms—the hospital), or if the local paper has evaluated the current water “plan” (thick but inadequate is what I hear)—if the AG-R has done any of these simple things, I haven’t seen it. The coverage implies that candidates are divided into two teams lined up against each other. Call them the Dodgers and the Defending Champs. But it’s not even like a real sport, where the two teams at least compete according to a set of rules to settle the conflict. It’s more like the scripted strutting braggadocio and accusations that go on before a fake pro wrestling match. Except that you don’t get to know who is the heel and who is the babyface.
If the situation were really as depicted, I’d be tempted to divide my votes between the teams in hopes of splitting up the heels, whoever they were. Guarantee that only a few commissioners who want to sell our water to Pickens get in instead of risking a whole commission full of Mesa Water toadies.
But of course that’s not the situation, and the creation of gridlock is a stupid voting goal. The truth really is out there. Some of the candidates are conspiring to sell our water to Pickens, or none of the candidates are conspiring to sell our water to Pickens, or all of the candidates are conspiring to sell our water to Pickens. It sure would be nice to have some indication of who has what in mind before May 7. Gawd, I wish local reporters knew how to do investigative journalism.
SPACEDARK
|