Evan Popp
82 TAKING A STAND
SAM FULLER/THE ITHACAN
EYE ON THE MEDIA | BY EVAN POPP
W
hen I was a freshman in high school, I decided sports journalism would be my future career. There was no reason to think it would last; there had been periods during the years prior when I wanted to become a psychologist, a novelist and a sociologist. But it did last. I began interning for a local newspaper, and while I eventually decided that I wanted to do news-based political coverage, I fell in love with journalism and how it constantly forced me to explore new ideas and subjects. Hydroponics and art exhibits one day, the debate over labeling GMOs and the intricacies of pharmaceutical policy another. For someone with many different interests, journalism became the perfect conduit for my generalist tendencies. The casual reader of my column on the media might find this hard to believe. Given my largely negative tone and consistent criticism of journalism, it would be reasonable to conclude that I hate the media. But that’s not the case. If I hated the media and felt it was irredeemable, I wouldn’t bother analyzing it. The real reason I write this column is because I love journalism, and I believe it can and must be better. Journalists — especially those in the mainstream media who have, in large part, been the target of my criticism — have an enormous collective platform, particularly in the age of social media in which journalism is more accessible than ever. And whether we know it or not, the way the media reports the news has a significant impact on how the public thinks about important issues. Journalism has the power to guide the contemporary debate, to push issues into the conversation or let them fade away. Because of its impact on society, it’s important that the media gets it right and that journalists do responsible reporting. And the basis of my column is that too often, this is not the case. Wedded to an objectivity-obsessed style that doesn’t challenge government power enough and is obsessed with horse-race reporting, the media has failed on the big issues time and time again. Journalistic blunders allowed George W. Bush to sell the Iraq War, and the free media many outlets gave to Donald Trump helped elevate his noxious, conspiratorial message to millions. Of course, the media has done effective, important reporting over the years. But there are countless other examples of journalism that has hurt rather than helped. The reason I write this column is that I’m trying to imagine and propose a world in which the media is driven not by complete objectivity, but by holding the powerful accountable. A media landscape in which reporters don’t splash the latest poll numbers or rumors about who’s running for what on the front page but instead consistently elevate and discuss issues of importance to everyday people, such as access to health care or the battle against climate change. Journalistic ethics in which skepticism and rigorous reporting are prized while groupthink and sensationalism are discouraged. To criticize something and demand that it be better is a form of flattery. I believe in journalism and its power to tell evocative stories that create shifts in public policy and help society understand the world more completely. It has potential. It just hasn’t reached it yet.