Preface to Journalistic Rhetoric

The contemporary media, specifically news journalists, may be compared with the classical rhetorician. In many ways, the journalist is the modern version of the Grecian orator because it is the journalist’s responsibility to present the facts of a situation to the public for judgment. Sometimes the obligations are the same, sometimes not. One obligation of the reporter is to present an ethical argument only, for which certain tactics are employed. These tactics are comparable to Aristotle's methods of persuasion, and the ethical obligation is sometimes obscured.  Finally, there is a limit to the responsibility of the reporter’s accuracy.

Objectivity

For example, it was the pleader’s business to prove the matter of fact; it is the reporter’s business to "prove" an event, to expose the existence of a situation (see Johnson). Today’s journalist recounts a story, the complete story, in order to enable the public to fully evaluate the situation. As the classical rhetor was responsible for flatly presenting a citizen’s case to a judge for evaluation, so is a reporter responsible for presenting a situation to the public for evaluation, such as voting.

And, like the classical rhetor, the reporter must persuade the audience of the logical conclusion without making a personal value judgment, illustrating the journalistic ideal of an impartial observer. For instance, in an editor's response to a Florida mayoral candidate's interview, we read of the media’s responsibility: “It’s not our job to make running for office an honorable process….Our job is to inform and, we hope, educate our readers….And it’s our job to report the reality….Only an informed community can make intelligent decisions” (Maucker 2003). It is a journalistic ideal to present only the facts of a situation to allow the audience to form an opinion that is free of the presenter’s bias.

However, such is not always the case, since a reporter’s own philosophy may enter a report, which is evident in the way the story is presented. Or, it is evident in the choice of story presented. A journalist may blatantly or inadvertently promote or discourage the results of a story by the choice to air or withhold a story, as is often the case with political coverage. For example, it may have been Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s journalistic duty to report the Watergate scandal, but it was also their choice to do so. And, their choice had an enduring effect on political science.

Ethics

However, the ideal to present a complete, unbiased report can be compromised in an attempt to accommodate other philosophies, according to traditional rhetoric. Often, the reporter is asked to value another principle over the principle of plain, total presentation. Such was the case when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed that the responsibility of the media was not to relay all of the facts, in the best interest of the U.S. military. He said:

“Defending our freedom and way of life is what this conflict is about, and that certainly includes freedom of the press….But we cannot and will not provide information that could jeopardize the success of our efforts to root out and liquidate the terrorist networks that threaten our people” (Kilian 2001).

With this statement, Rumsfeld is asking the media to make a value judgment on the information chosen to be presented to the public. Rumsfeld asks journalists to accommodate a personal and national sense of patriotism in lieu of upholding a journalistic ideal. He believes that the news media have responsibilities that are more important than relaying the complete account.

But, should a reporter not opt for patriotism over plain, total reporting, the U.S. Central Command in Iraq has restricted the information allowed to be presented. In March 2003, it “deliberately imposed a media blackout on tactical and ground battles, especially that the pictures of the US-British losses have left the troops with low morale” (BBC Monitoring Media 2003). Thus, the government took the responsibility from the reporter.

Aristotle might not have denounced Rumsfeld’s claim but might disagree with the U.S. Central Command’s practice of withholding information for what may be considered an ethical reason; both choices were made for the same reason. Of the latter, Aristotle believed that all the facts must be known to reduce the risk of error due to ignorance. According to classical rhetoric, a reporter should be educated on a subject to be able to prove or refute a position, and the reporter should present a complete case to the public. Of the former, while Aristotle advocated reporting only a morally-accepted issue, he believed that a single ethical philosophy was not absolute. The supposed welfare of one’s own troops might fall into an equally important category, for, by not relaying tactical information to one’s enemy—as Rumsfeld claims was happening—one upholds the greater good, national security in this case. Of the greater of two goods, Aristotle states, “it must be that plurality is a greater good than one or a few, provided that one or those few be enumerated in conjunction with it” (Aristotle 1995:45). A reporter may withhold information, providing the greater good be presented. One reads:

“Is the first duty of the correspondent to the truth or to his country? Put it another way: A war correspondent can be a hero, but can he be a patriot? The history of warfare suggests it is not a false antithesis. Government, understandably, put a priority on nurturing morale at home and in the military; both sides compete in demonisation” (Evans 2001).

Rhetors themselves were allowed a choice based on principle; however, it should be allowed that choice. Therefore, the classical rhetor can argue for Rumsfeld’s request but not the U.S. Central Command’s actions because the former reflects an acceptable pluralism, while the latter impedes a fact-based conclusion.

Methods

Whether perspectives are personal or public, the media uses many tactics to present a situation. Besides merely presenting the facts for evaluation—which Aristotle would claim would lead the audience to naturally conclude the truth if all the facts are presented—the news media use reputation and sympathetic alignment to win an audience.

For example, the journalist relies on the public’s perception of its character for evaluation of a report, and that character must be one of trustworthiness. This ethical reliability—not just in the reporter but in the profession—aids the credibility of journalists (see Martin), hearkening to Aristotle’s belief that the quality of the person influences the audience’s reaction to a presentation. For example, “The Blair scandal has helped erode public confidence in journalism since its heyday covering the Vietnam War and Watergate. Only 36 percent of people trust the media compared with 54 percent in 1989, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll said” (Fine 2003). According to Aristotle and contemporary media, this erosion of credibility wears the foundation of a persuasive argument. The power of media is based upon their dependability; the famous names, such as Walter Chronkite, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, are large factors in the respect the profession enjoys today. Realizing the import of reputation, many journalists have gone so far as to impose strict rules upon themselves to show the public, the audience, that they are worthy of respect. For instance, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), in the wake of (and supposedly before) the suicide of David Kelly in connection with the Iraq war, planned to:

“invite outside experts and polling organizations to monitor its impartiality and reporting standards in an effort to protect self-regulation by its board of governors. . . .Europe’s largest publicly funded broadcasting [company] is fighting growing calls for Ofcom, Britain’s media regulator, to assume regulatory responsibility for the accuracy and impartiality of BBC programming. . . .The audit is aimed partly at restoring the credibility of the BBC” (Burt 2003).

Although he would place the responsibility with the individual and not with a governing body, Aristotle’s treatise was a guide to self-regulation, written due to the necessity for faith in the accuracy of the rhetor as a means of prevailing in an argument.

Another method that the media uses to convince an audience is to align itself emotionally with the audience. As Aristotle states, one way to win an argument is to appeal to the listener’s sentiment; hence, media often portray subjects that people want to know about—giving them what they want. This selection is portrayed as a heightened sensitivity to the public’s needs. The choice of airing what is popular may be perceived as putting a higher priority on ratings than on news—a form of selling out—since the media sometimes seem to present only topics known to draw an audience. Some feel that news media are more concerned with the quantity of those in the audience rather than the quality of the report or its contribution to the profession. On the other hand, the selection may also be thought of as a consideration to the consumer, essentially that there is a news supply and demand, and reporters are filling a void in available information on a subject. “It is very easy to fault the media, but I’m not sure the real people to criticize [are] the media but also the consumers of the media. We need a more enlightened public” (Weiss 2003), says Tome Friedman of the Middle East crisis. This view places more responsibility on the audience and advocates a reporter satiating the audience’s desire rather than choosing news stories and perspectives that disregard the audience’s wants.  In comparison, Aristotle would have been more concerned with proving the truth or promoting the greater good than taking into account the audience's desires, doing so only to develop tactics to persuade it.

Ignorance

Another point that might be compared between Aristotle’s rhetor and the contemporary reporter is the question of misdirection due to ignorance. Both parties advocated knowing all of the facts of a matter before it is presented for evaluation. The former claimed that, if a considerable effort was made to know the facts, the misdirection of the evaluator cannot be blamed on the rhetor should those facts be incomplete or erroneous. Today, the public is upset by reporting mistakes because errors detract from the credibility of the media; however, the fast pace of news journalism and the increased demand for the latest developments makes extensive research much harder. For example, in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (September 11) the news media tried to report much information as quickly as possible, often overlooking the fact-checking and editing process; “the very qualities that allow television to keep its audience connected also leave it vulnerable to conveying undeveloped, sometimes erroneous reports in the fury of a fast but meandering investigation” (Ruttenberg 2001). Aristotle claims that every effort should be make to provide the audience with all of the correct facts. However, having done so, the rhetor is not responsible for the outcome as long as misdirection was not intended. To accommodate this view, journalists often disclaim such intent.

“I think there are journalistic standards that absolutely apply—they don’t go out the window when you’re doing live TV,’ Mr. [Tom] Bettag said. ‘At the same time, it’s not a ‘that’s the way it is’ tone. It’s ‘we’re trying to do our best to tell you an ongoing story,’ and the great anchors do it in that tone’” (Ruttenberg 2001). 

Contemporary journalists, ideally, rely on the Aristotelian standard of reporting as much as they know at the time, that practice being acceptable to the journalistic profession, if not the audience.

Furthermore, an audience is prone to judge an event based on the outcome rather than the process. Aristotle’s rhetor was not held responsible for a situation’s result if there was no intent to harm. However, the media are often credited with having great influence and, knowing of this power, are held responsible for an outcome, at least in part. For example, many news networks were faulted for the way they represented September 11. The stations—caught off-guard as much as anyone in the United States—repeatedly showed the confusion and fear of people walking or running from the tragedy. They repeatedly aired the number of the deceased, the families of the victims and the extent of the damage. But, the media did not air guidance for people or what to do in a time of crisis, to the same extent. At the time, they did not immediately air as much of what authorities did to put the situation under some sort of control. They did not air much advice or encourage people to not panic. It has been said that the choice of what was presented contributed more terror to an already grievous situation; news stations—in an effort to be the first or the best—forced even more despair on the public. This overexposure was done to the extent that stations later changed their programming, stating it was their duty to downplay the situation in order to be sensitive to the U.S. citizen’s pain because: “Angry views have voiced disapproval of inappropriate television treatment through letter-writing and e-mail campaigns, many citing tasteless or overdone moments and biased shadings rather than lapses in factual coverage” (Harper 2001). Matt Nisbett, on a popular—often editorial—Website, claimed:

“The shock that swept across the public in the wake of the September 11 events underscores one possible effect of trends in the news media over the past decade. The news media's overwhelming obsession with scandal, sex, and celebrity has failed to provide the American public with the necessary international context and understanding that might help people cope with the terrorist attack, and enable the public to apply some level of differentiated knowledge in the assessment of an impending American military response” (2001).

The classical rhetor might not have been culpable for the increased terror if a case could be made that there was no intent to harm—only to expose the calamity of the situation. But, in this case, the September 11 reporters presented the facts as best they were known at the time, albeit a very short amount of time, in an effort to show all the facts to the audience in order that it may make an informed decision, regardless of consequences. But, too much information was condemned, and journalists were sometimes held accountable for part of the ensuing terror.

Along these lines and because of the influence of broadcasting, reporters are given greater responsibility; they are held to a higher standard where they must be part judge instead of only presenting to a judge. After September 11, many accused the media of not using their position to calm the public or to contribute to a sense of competency of crisis management teams. As Kevin Fagan of the San Francisco Chronicle states, “The media’s first mandate is to get the best, most complete information quickly to the public—but the balancing act between that and public responsibility in a time of terror is far from clear” (2001). He quotes his executive editor, who claims, “’It’s often the goal of people and institutions of power to control the flow of information,’ said [Phil] Bronstein. ‘The power and the value of responsible press is to help increase the flow of information, the idea being that an informed public is a good thing.” Finally, Fagan reports,

“‘There are three phases to a terrorist campaign: motivation, getting the word out, and then actually inflicting terror on society,’ says Robert Ressler, a former FBI agent who specializes in terrorism issues. ‘The media is an important link—if they don’t get the message out, the third phase isn’t going to happen’” (2001).