I like Matt Taibbi. A lot. His gimlet take on things is wry and powerfully perceptive. So when I saw the title of his newest piece, “Stop Whining About False Balance,” I anticipated hearing a new way of regarding the issue of false equivalency.
What I got instead was an uncharacteristically muddy whine in and of itself. First Taibbi argues that no “false balance” problem in the media exists. Then that it’s not a problem if it does. And then that the “false balance” problem the media does have is really not their fault.
First, he denies there’s a problem.
The people complaining about "false balance" usually seem confident in having discovered the truth of things for themselves, despite the media's supposed incompetence. They're quite sure of whom to vote for and why.
That paragraph falls under what the horse players call “cheap speed.” Seems like a winner at first blush, but then quickly fades. The assertion falters before the backstretch for the simple reason that the issue isn’t and never has been competence. It’s about a desire for uncorrupted evenhandedness, the idea that the race stewards are not turning a blind eye to doped horses.
Taibbi may hope you didn’t notice him mixing logical levels. Or he may just have been thinking carelessly, failing to involve the hierarchical difference between news reporters and news bosses. Reporters who write what happened in prose that is clear enough so that anyone who saw the thing happen would not dispute the account are always forced to hand over those competent works to editors, producers, advertisers or owners—who control what stories get published.
And that is where imbalance, or false balance, or outright bias, can—and does—creep in. Not incompetence at work, but malice.
Of course reporters can see differences between, say, the granting of an audience to a Nobel-prize winner who gave handsomely to a foundation, and the dropping of a prosecution of a defendant who gave handsomely to a campaign. They can see the differences, and they may write stories exploring them. But whether they ever makes the front, or any other page, is a different, and completely separate, matter.
But la, never mind that little difficulty. Because Taibbi has already struck out on an even more inventive thread. Namely: Okay, let’s say there is false equivalence in the media. Who the hell are you to be getting all upset about it?
Their complaints are really about the impact that "false balance" coverage might have on other, lesser humans, with weaker minds than theirs. Which is not just snobbish, but laughably snobbish. So, shut up.
You have to admire the daring of this attempted reverse snobbery one-and-a-half in the pike position: Due to my incredibly strong mind, I am very critical of lesser humans who criticize lesser humans with weaker minds, thereby establishing what weak minds they have. That’s putting your ankle behind your ear, there.
But don’t just laugh and pass this developing infinite regress by. Whatever you do, don’t miss the question lying beneath this logical contortion. Does it really matter what the media says?
Taibbi’s answer seems to be no. He implies that people will inevitably see through any sort of slanted nonsense and arrive at the truth. You did, and so will everyone else.
Which would come as a hell of a shock to Joe Goebbels, Edward Bernays, and Roger Ailes.
Let’s take a breather. Time for a quick recap: There is no false balance problem. OK, there is a false balance problem, but it’s not a problem.
Now listen up, there’s something even better coming. There IS a false media balance problem, and it IS a problem, but it’s not the media’s problem. It’s YOURS.
Say you think you notice the papers and the teevee scrutinizing Clinton’s every utterance or action with a microscope and tweezers, whilst allowing the greater number of Trump’s whoppers to pass without challenge. That is indeed a problem. But it’s not the papers and the teevee who are responsible. Nosiree, Bob! It is you, the consumers of news, who have the problem. The media only ever gives its customers what they demand.
Taibbi writes,
One of the main reasons the news media has been dumbed down over the years is because audiences have consistently rejected smart, responsible journalism in favor of clickbait stupidities like "Five Things You Didn't Know About John McCain's Penis" and "Woman Strips Naked in Front of Police Officers. You Won't Believe What Happened Next." The Bachelor and Toddlers and Tiaras crush Frontline. And people wonder why Donald Trump gets a lot of coverage? …You proved it when you clicked on that video of the episode last weekend and didn't read a compare-and-contrast piece on, for instance, the candidates' banking policies.
And there you have it. It’s not like it’s the media’s fault, or anything.
Like RJ Reynolds, the media only gives people what they want. There’s an appetite out there, and we are in the business of satisfying appetites. (Subtext: the biggest appetite wins.)
So even if your tobacco is loaded up with freebase nicotines to make it more addictive, and even if the advertisements for it are geared to creating and increasing the appetite for them, it’s still your appetite. And thus, nobody’s fault but your own if you should come down with something, say, a fascist government.
Let’s not even contemplate the sorry state of news that it has come to define itself as satisfying appetites.
Taibbi knows all this. Who has pointed out more forcefully that the subprime crisis cannot be blamed on shiftless rube bums taking out loans they never should have? Who has more lamented the failure of those who should have exercised some fiduciary duty instead of merely choosing whichever path rendered them the richest? Who has called louder than Taibbi to have them punished?
And yet, now here he is, saying what makes you think you have the right to expect the producers of news not to violate the very notion of evenhanded reporting, if it makes them a buck?
Like the Aaron of the Bible, Taibbi abets the media in rinsing their hands of responsibility. Hey, not my fault—thou knowest the people, they are set on mischief.
To be fair, I think there’s ample evidence that Taibbi would say there is plenty of blame to go around for this decline of the polis, among its putative citizens and among its putative guardians.
It’d be nice if as keen a mind as his would direct itself to the task of thinking about what might turn things around.