Group hug

Are the best journalists kind of, well, sociopaths? Chris Hayes points to this brilliant piece by Ron Rosenbaum:

I find it hard to be as cutting, or even as critical, as I really feel about people who allow me to enter their zone of privacy. I blame my parents for teaching me manners—the best investigative journalists don't have the best manners. The best investigative reporters might be called "sociopaths for truth." I think you know the type I'm talking about. And the very best of these are often good at faking empathy and then coldly eviscerating the empathized-with one.

Some writers are built this way, happy to sacrifice the person for the story. But not enough anymore! Janet Malcolm famously wrote (in the opening of The Journalist and the Murderer) about the way writers gain the trust of their subjects and end up “betraying them without remorse.” It may have been true when she published the book, in 1990, but is it now? It sounds cold, but not enough reporters and writers are willing to betray or even alienate their subjects. If they do, they risk being denied access to other subjects. They’re no longer part of the club.

Writing about policy and business from 30,000 feet, I'm largely protected from this, but certainly not immune. I find it hard to say even the obvious things about people I've interviewed who are clearly odious media whores, self-destructive louts, or merely deeply silly. And the closer you get to people, the harder it gets . . . which is why most journalists lean farther left the closer they get to on the ground reporting. This does not make them right, mind you; there is a tendency to ignore any costs to their policy prescriptions that are not personified right in front of them, which often means advocating policies that would make society in aggregate worse off. But it's certainly understandable.

I'd say another emerging problem in journalism is that journalists and the people they cover are becoming more and more concentrated in a few cities. And that means that they're all each other's friends. Which means that it's harder to say mean things about each other.

Luckily for me, all the journalists I know were quite comfortable saying nasty things about me before I met them in person--and vice versa. But as a general phenomenon, I think it's important.

Comments

I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but why would this make journalists lean more to the left the closer they get to their subjects?

FWIW, sometimes I suspect that this can lead to better journalism. E.g., I fully expected "Three Blind Mice" to be an ignorant, anti-corporate screed, but found it to be a much better, more nuanced and thoughtful work, something I attributed to the author's having actually regularly met his subjects.

Posted by Scott Wood | October 5, 2007 3:54 PM

I've certainly noticed that on this blog, and in the media in general, New York tends to be held up as a normal city when it is, in fact, a relatively unique city.

And while reporters may believe they are seeking the "truth", what they report is heavily biased by their own personal beliefs and experiences. This is brought home to me anytime I read a news report on something I am familiar with.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 5, 2007 4:19 PM

"which is why most journalists lean farther left the closer they get to on the ground reporting": like Scott, I'm puzzled. It looks like a giant non sequitur to me. Would you care to explain?

Posted by dearieme | October 5, 2007 5:53 PM

Sorry, I was being dim. You were using "left" as a synonym for dishonest. Yes?

Posted by dearieme | October 5, 2007 5:53 PM

And the closer you get to people, the harder it gets . . . which is why most journalists lean farther left the closer they get to on the ground reporting.

Another vote for more explanation -- I think dearieme's guess is wrong.

Posted by Lorenzo | October 5, 2007 6:08 PM

"You were using "left" as a synonym for dishonest. Yes?"

Actually, 'dishonest' is a euphemism for what really lurks in the Leftist mind.

Posted by TG | October 5, 2007 9:06 PM

"And the closer you get to people, the harder it gets . . . which is why most journalists lean farther left the closer they get to on the ground reporting."

It can mean but one thing: The journalist who sympathizes with bad people ( "odious media whores, self-destructive louts, or merely deeply silly") are conservative and those who are repulsed are farther left. Ergo, the far left is morally more upstanding than the right.

As a conservative, this assumption seems odious, or at the least deeply silly.

Posted by Patty | October 5, 2007 9:07 PM

I think the standard descriptions of "left" and "right" suggest the left judges by intentions, and the right by results.

Therefore if your Intention is Truth, it doesn't matter how many weeping interviewees you leave behind. But if you pay attention to the interviewees, the results may be a bit discomfiting.

Thus, left. You can hurt people and feel virtuous about it. "Afflict the comfortable!"

Posted by Dr. Ellen | October 5, 2007 9:09 PM

I thought most journalists were on the Left due to self-selection. All my journo friends were lefty social justice types in college, that's why they became journalists.

They also were all from well-off families, which is why they could afford the low pay of entry level journo jobs.

Posted by jim | October 5, 2007 9:26 PM

most journalists lean farther left the closer they get to on the ground reporting...

This is a phenomenon I observed in journalism school, and after. Young reporters frequently get assigned to cover human tragedy - fires, floods, crime, flag-draped coffins, whatever. Also, they cover city halls and legislatures, where politicians purport to fix society's problems through wise governance. It's easy to start looking to government to fix all the problems of the world in that circumstance. It's only after I got out of that field that I started to ask how those miserable people contributed to their own misery and might contribute to their own betterment. And how the politician's prescriptions could stand in their way. No dishonesty is required for this to happen, just a bunch of people working together who think inside the same box.

Posted by Scottybill | October 5, 2007 9:33 PM

Hi! I'm writing from Universe A and I'm here temporarily just to see how you folks do things in your universe.

Could someone point me to some recent examples of journalists being something other than hacks? For instance, the top prez contenders constantly utter misleading, false, or borderline lunatic statements about immigration, yet no "journalists" call them on it.

Why would "journalists" fail to point out those issues?

BTW, what color is the sky over there?

Posted by TLB | October 5, 2007 10:27 PM

I'd say another emerging problem in journalism is that journalists and the people they cover are becoming more and more concentrated in a few cities.

It's been emerging so long that Christopher Lasch wrote a book on it over a decade ago, Revolt of the Elites.

Posted by Curmudgeon Geographer | October 5, 2007 10:31 PM

So the premise is that brilliant journalism can only be conducted by being an unethical sociopath? What utter narcissistic, nihlistic garbage.

As I work with auditors and compliance professionals for one of the larger global financial firms, ethics and a principled personal foundation comes first with everyone I work with. It is unthinkable that you could progress past a lower level analyst without this foundation. The people I work with did learn manners from their parents, gain the trust of those they work with and understand how trust is the foundation for what we do.

While our behavior may not be popular, especially to those who committed significant errors or crimes, there is no question that what we do is just and based on reason. It's curious how reason and objective reality is directly derived from a foundation of trust and ethics.

In this respect, there should be no surprise that journalists consistently produce false reports, sell out to political or corrupt interests, tilt reporting to the point they are incapable of detecting material, significant bias, and in an almost epidemic proportion, produce completely fictitious reports. Objectivity only occurs in an environment based on ethics. Simply put, you cannot know the truth unless you're anchored in it.

Until the journalistic profession engages significant reform (perhaps through professional accreditation standards and requirements similar to that of CPAs, CFAs and other certifications), they will fail to be respected by other professionals and their failure to serve the public as a watchdog will only increase.

Posted by redherkey | October 5, 2007 10:46 PM

Fellow journalist and other commenters,

I find my gut reaction to people may be spot on, but that doesn't mean it's actually relevant. If I consider someone to be some kind of media whore, if I find the message they're broadcasting to be worth noting, it'll get noted without the footnote of my concern. Why? That's being objective.

While it's kind of easy to dismiss Megan's comment about how those who cover human tragedy wind up moving to the left, there's something to her take. To be able to cover suffering without bias would be *exceptional*, to do so with a bit of bias would be normal, and to be able to come away with a load of bias and still remain respected as a journalist is to do something extraordinary (see also: Nick Kristoff).

Even while most people trend toward being personally libertarian, when confronted with issues of human welfare, most folks just respond with "The government should do something." It's a natural response from years after years of academics and media pundits claiming that the .gov can solve all our problems.

So sure. When a reporter is covering something, they're more likely to sympathize with it. I can't tell you the number of times I talk to a journalist that became one because they wanted to "make the world better." That's not necessarily bad. But if most journalists are already predisposed toward liberal beliefs, they're more likely, in a face to face situation, to lean on those liberal beliefs in their reportage.

Posted by J.P. | October 5, 2007 10:57 PM

To rebut something redherkey said, briefly --

Who ever said that you should turn to one journalist's account to find the truth? The accreditation is in the market and in the reputation. I think that if we've lasted in society this long with a gigantic media-industrial complex that skipped the exam to become Journalista Doctorae, I'm sure that we're going to do just fine going forward. Besides, bloggers would render such a requirement null.

Ethics are pretty much determined by the market here. Thank heavens.

Posted by J.P. | October 5, 2007 11:02 PM

To redherkey:

It seems a pretty solid argument to me. In order to report the truth, a reporter must gain the trust of a source and that source is very often unsavory. In order to gain the sources trust, the reporter must say things and/or do things that make the source feel like there is a connection of ideas or backgrounds. In other words, they must bond (or at least appear to).
Then the reporter must break the trust by publishing some confidential details. This of course is true only in investigative reporting. Any reporter who wanted to infiltrate a neo-nazi group, for instance, would have to say that they hate jews, etc and spend lots of time with his/her source, drinking with the source, etc. Once that person has grown to trust the reporter the reporter leaves and publishes the secrets. That's how it works.
It is the same dynamic in espionage. A good mole has to project empathy and camraderie while at the same time preparing to stick the knife in the back. Feigning emotions that one doesn't have helps in this regard and that is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

Posted by Zach | October 5, 2007 11:20 PM

I'm a Librarian. I analyze the scope accuracy and coverage of information sources (Collection Development). I fact check for a living (Reference). I no longer believe ANY journalist. As a government official thats given interviews and seen how they morphed, as an analyist of news, and as a consumer of news I have lost all faith that any of our current crop of journalists can provide the minimum information necessary for Americans to make informed decisions in a democratic process. Our Media just does a bad job.

Posted by Rob Finch | October 5, 2007 11:21 PM

WHile not a librarian, I do enough reseach to have come to the same conclusion as M. Finch about the current crop of reporters. I supect it stems from the way journalism is taught these days, journalists are taught to view themselves as Custodians of Truth. Unfortunetly that means facts which are irrelevant to the Truth are meaningless to you and other facts have to sometimes be mangled to fit the Truth, unfortunete if you are the consumer and wish to know the facts upon which to make an independant judgement.

A long, long time ago when I was in college and 18 year olds were allowed to drink in bars I took a journalism course and one of the things that stuck with me was that reporter (back then) was suupposed to report the fact that someone said something, not that what they said was the fact. How often do you see forms like "Maria spends 2/3rds of her $400/week income on rent" (has reporter seen a pay stub and a rent reciept?) instead of "Maria says she spends 2/3rds of her $400/week income on rent"?

Why is this importnant for a reporter? Once one has accepted a set of facts as the Truth, then every other piece of information obtained has to be weighed in terms of that Truth. If, in the Maria example, the reporter later finds out she spends $50/week on pot, $20/day on diapers and sundries at the corner store, and $80 each weekend at a bar, then if the starting fact was "Maria says..." the reporter has no problem integrating this into the accepted facts, while if the starting fact is "Maria spends . . ." then the reporter cannot integrate this new information with the starting fact, it must either be ignored or minimized or ( if the deadline permits and the Truth is not considered important enough to outweigh inconvienent facts) be triple checked for accuracy to see if they actually can impeach the starting fact.

To an extent this is sociopathy, but the alternative is journalism which is useless to people who want to know the facts.

Posted by one in many | October 6, 2007 2:34 AM

ooof. Sorry about the typos, I intended to hit preview to see if I was overlong and correct typos but it is late at night (early morning actually) for me and you can see the result.

Posted by one in many | October 6, 2007 2:39 AM

More succinctly and less tactfully than much of the above, most 'journalists' are lazy and ignorant. They think as a group and display a gulliblity that is astounding.

Posted by Cris | October 6, 2007 5:36 AM

I'd say another emerging problem in journalism is that journalists and the people they cover are becoming more and more concentrated in a few cities. And that means that they're all each other's friends. Which means that it's harder to say mean things about each other.

Add to that the relatively new phenomenon of "celebrity journalists". When a disaster strikes somewhere in the world, the networks/newspapers want their stars reporting on it. And that requires a Washington angle...here's what the government can do! And politicians will be giddy to submit ridiculously premature proposals, soon repeated on air as if handed down from a wise sage.

Posted by JeanneB | October 6, 2007 6:38 AM

redherkey, that was such a great comment that I am going to quote it on my blog and attribute it to you. Fantastic.

I think this adversarial relationship stems from the concept that every bad thing has at it's root some kind of negligence or villainy. Humans are naturally mistake-prone. All of life is a convergence process where we asymptotically approach an effective lifestyle for ourselves. When we deviate from what is efficient or good or worthy, it's usually just us being human. The reporters described above attack all of these deviations as if the human committing them was supposed to have been omniscient and anticipated it all.

All of that gloating over people's mistakes can only be done by sociopaths who have renounced or denied their own humanity. Witness Katie Couric's reluctance to use the word "we" when referring to Americans. It's as if she is above all the rest of us, looking down.

The financial collapse of the MSM couldn't happen to a better group of people. They get no sympathy from me. It's all part of their own convergence process. Perhaps, in time, they'll learn to embrace their own humanity.

Posted by K T Cat | October 6, 2007 8:05 AM

As I've said before, your views are too much conditioned by your long residence in cities

I recommend you live a year or two in flyover country and see what you believe after that. College towns don't count: they are to New York as ancient Greek city-states were to their colonies.

Posted by Brett | October 6, 2007 8:48 AM

redherkey said: "Until the journalistic profession engages significant reform (perhaps through professional accreditation standards and requirements similar to that of CPAs, CFAs and other certifications), they will fail to be respected by other professionals and their failure to serve the public as a watchdog will only increase."

I think you have clearly indicated why journalism is not a profession, but rather of a calling. And "the called" tend to be of a type far removed from intellectually objective or politically conservative.

Posted by PokerGuy | October 6, 2007 9:59 AM

The notion of reporters having to get accredited is not only illegal (First Amendment, remember?) but it's also antithetical to redherkey's argument. I'd argue that it's, in fact, the professionalization of journalism -- ie, j-schools -- that have undermined newspapers and their unique appeal in our democracy. Once you're part of the ivory tower elite, you tend to stop asking the basic questions the average American -- and, of course, reader -- is likely to ask. (This is why so many of the audience questions in the recent YouTube prez debate seemed so fresh and insightful.) It's less political persuasion and objectivity/subjectivity that matters, but simply relevance. What journalists really need to do is stop trying to change the world and start opening their eyes and asking the kind of "stupid" questions that always produce the best and most insightful answers. BTW, let's not get too grandstand-y here: There's lots of good, fair, informative and truthful reporting being published everyday in the good old MSM. We couldn't have our Republic without our ink-stained (and pseudo-sociopathic) wretches.

Posted by Swede | October 6, 2007 10:53 AM

"most 'journalists' are lazy and ignorant. They think as a group and display a gulliblity that is astounding."

Do they also make lazy generalizations?

Posted by a reporter | October 6, 2007 11:11 AM

KT Cat & others... thanks for the feedback on my observations. Per Zach's observation justifying the lack-of-trust approach:

"Then the reporter must break the trust by publishing some confidential details"

To digress into the mechanics of investigative analysis, Zach's observation prescribes a one-sided model of factual discovery and disclosure, without an opportunity for rebuttal - a very poor model for reporting challenging findings. That alone usually weakens the integrity of the finding, since the fact-finder (reporter, auditor, etc.) does not present the material back to the source for discussion. This causes the reporter/auditor to not have an opportunity to validate or explain the finding. Often, there are sound explanations for findings and I'd be wary of ignoring this feedback.

Worse yet, it creates an adversarial relationship where the investigator is left to sneaking about. Further dialog with the investigation subject may be dishonest and objective data from primary collection means is impaired. This is where professional certification is very helpful: I'm comfortable presenting my findings to subjects, seeking explanation and realizing they may be harmful to careers, and my subjects know my professional credentials represent both a competency in my field and a commitment to ethics throughout the process. We increasingly use a "facilitated" approach, discovering problems to help expose them and force the organization to deal with the problem. Wouldn't a real journalist want to do the same, rather than just tear down institutions and leave countless investors harmed and workers unemployed?

You'll find that effective journalists do not fear communicating their findings back to their investigation subject for explanation and clarification. Often, they are negative findings and their discovery and presentation may be damaging to peoples careers. But occasionally you'll discover critical facts through this process that change the perspective - or more importantly, suggest the detrimental finding is being addressed through compensating efforts.

For a journalist who is not a subject-matter expert in really anything, this open approach is critical for their process. It's one thing for me to assess an acquisition firm's financial data, but for a journalist who lacks forensic accounting expertise, they're more likely to make serious errors and only the post-discovery discussion provides an opportunity to avoid key misrepresentations. Unfortunately, you see these basic errors plaguing stories in non-specialized media (major news networks, NYTimes, Time & Newsweek, etc), and increasingly, competent people turn away from such error prone reporting.

I really do believe the only mechanism that will save the journalism field is a professional accreditation and certification of its members. I would not work with a financial analyst, account, information security expert, etc. who had not gone through this process. The Chartered Financial Analyst designation (cfainstitute.org) has a code of ethics and information on the site that can serve as an example of the standard that is set through this organization. In our environment, one simply does not work with un-accredited individuals.

Posted by redherkey | October 6, 2007 11:37 AM

redherkey, why do you do what you do?

Reportage and auditing have vastly different purposes and drivers. Audits are imposed. Someone, somewhere wants to double-check something that has already happened. It could be to get a warm fuzzy feeling that is going well or it could be in reaction to suspected wrong-doing. In either case, the audited are not driving the process yet are REQUIRED to submit to it.

If I want to ask the homeless man on the corner to do my taxes, that's my problem. Asking someone certified is certainly wiser, but it is not required.

Reporting doesn't work either way.

There is no one forcing the production of news stories. People report on things, basically, because they want to (or their editor wants them to). There is nothing that must be reported, whereas there are things that must be audited (by law).

Reporting is not (usually) driven by the subject, either.

Do you suggest declining to say anything other than "no comment" unless the interviewer is certified? How well do you think that would actually work?

Do you think a paper with only certified reporters on staff would be significantly different from, say, the New York Times?

Who would create the standards? Here's a clue: Who created the accounting standards you are holding up as an example? Accountants!

Posted by mrsizer | October 6, 2007 12:43 PM

mrsizer asks several good questions which hopefully I can reasonably address:

>Do you suggest declining to say anything other than "no comment" unless the interviewer is certified?

This is little different than the status quo today. After being burnt a couple of years ago from unethical reporting, my employer changed its practice and turns down requests for comments and interviews through all but the PR channels. Talking with peers at other Fortune 500 firms, they have similar constraints. Lacking standards and objectivity, why take the risk?

>How well do you think that would actually work?

Journalists desperately need a framework that is administered by fellow journalists (self-policing) with the intent of holding the profession accountable to high standards in both practice and ethics. Perhaps one central designation could be achieved through study, testing and recertification through ongoing education, such as a "Certified Professional Journalist". Certainly, specialized areas such as business journalism, political and technological could merit specialized designation. Perhaps an organization like the SPJ would guide in its administration.

>Do you think a paper with only certified reporters on staff would be significantly different from, say, the New York Times?

Do you think a firm with CPAs is significantly different than those who are simply bookkeepers with accounting undergraduate degrees? Do you think a mutual fund managed by CFAs differs from those without? I can attest that there is a significant difference in the quality of practice between a CIA or CISA, and one who lacks the accreditation. Having achieved two designations and working on the third, I can assure you that there is a difference, and I routinely refer to the ethics guidance in both the CISA and CFA programs daily in my profession. Journalists would likewise benefit from such reference and guidance.

>Who would create the standards? Here's a clue: Who created the accounting standards you are holding up as an example? Accountants!

Exactly. One would expect a profession to self-regulate, which the journalist profession is well overdue on administering. If you follow the imposition on Sarbanes-Oxley with respect to FASB, you'll find that many recognize SOX as an external response to the failure of self-regulation of the profession. First, give journalists the opportunity to self-regulate, and then if that fails, let them spend decades in jail with Bernie Ebbers for intentionally publishing false reports that damage the public trust. Remember: the freedom prescribed in the constitution is of action, but not from responsibility and accountability. Just as I'm free to bear arms, I'm not free to use them irresponsibly and randomly shoot people.

Let me turn the questions around: there is no question that much of the mainstream media has failed to support ethics and has violated the public trust provided, as defined in the constitution. Absent the imposition of external controls which may actually be prescribed per its failure, what else would you recommend will provide ongoing stewardship of the practice? Who will weed out the frauds (especially when political interests who own newspapers have no interest in self-policing)? Who will demand ethical practice, when powerful elites are paying for the opposite behavior in his organizations?

Ethical reform isn't a new dynamic - Upton Sinclair and other journalists of his era helped enforce it upon corporations who discovered the "guiding hand" wasn't quite capable of protecting the public. Either the journalistic practice will implement self-reform or external parties will, at a serious detriment to free speech. Regardless, the current unethical and incompetent practice of the majority of today's media will not be tolerated much further.

Posted by redherkey | October 6, 2007 3:47 PM

'Reporter' asks:'Do they also make lazy generalizations?"

I can't say all do, only the ones I've read.
They don't ask very good questions, either.

Posted by Cris | October 6, 2007 3:59 PM

"I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but why would this make journalists lean more to the left the closer they get to their subjects?"

I haven't seen anyone give a brief explanation for this, so here goes:

How many influential reporters live in lefty NY and LA, vs righty flyover states?

So if a journalist writes a pro-left piece, his pals pat him on the back. Write a pro-right speech and he's suddenly uninvited to cocktail parties.

Posted by J Rez | October 6, 2007 4:55 PM

what is this?
"And the closer you get to people, the harder it gets . . . which is why most journalists lean farther left the closer they get to on the ground reporting. This does not make them right, mind you; there is a tendency to ignore any costs to their policy prescriptions that are not personified right in front of them, which often means advocating policies that would make society in aggregate worse off. But it's certainly understandable."

Journalists lean left because...they are closer to people? Leftist journalists tend to ignore ANY costs to policy prescriptions that are not right in from of them, and because they do this the policies they advocate make society worse off?

The Alantic pays for this type of 'reasoning'?

Posted by rickm | October 7, 2007 2:26 PM

rickm wrote: The Alantic pays for this type of 'reasoning'?

Nope...or they'd be cutting you a few fat ones. However, if you bothered to read the comments the post inspired, you'll encounter some like Scottybill's, which lend dimensions to the issue that otherwise would not have been made available.

Posted by anony-mouse | October 7, 2007 3:43 PM

I'm a reporter at a large newspaper. Most of my colleagues are good people who work hard to get at the truth. None are sociopaths that I can see. But the business is so retro, so soaked in the ethos of Vietnam and Watergate, that our targets are predictable: Big business, the rich, military body bag counting, Republican presidents, etc. Journalism would revive if we'd stop internalizing that gag-inducing cliche "Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." Way too many left-leaning personages and institutions are spared embarassing stories because they claim "afflicted" status or have sympathizers in the newsroom. I don't want newsrooms to become right wing. I simply want them to stop providing cover for the left. The public would trust us more and we'd get tons of good stories. Don't hold your breath until most of the Boomers retire and take the ghosts of Westmoreland and Nixon with them.

Posted by jamannn | October 8, 2007 12:23 PM

Republican presidents, etc

Right, because we all know the media had nothing to do with the appointment of Ken Starr. Especially liberal reporters like Jeff Gerth at the NY Times. And boy it's a good thing Judith Miller went after the current administration's claims about WMD.

Posted by Derek Scruggs | October 8, 2007 5:04 PM

Derek, your narrow examples don't refute the general rule. In the newsroom culture, right of center personalities/institutions are guilty until proven innocent and left of center personalities/institutions are innocent until proven guilty. Bill Clinton was given an extremely long leash by the media - to the point that Newsweek even suppressed the Monica story. George Bush was initially given wide latitude after the shock of 9/11, but the media will forever rue that decision. Two media phenomena, among many others, support my point: 1. The slathering attention Republican apostates get from the media. Their defection from conservatism earns them instant angel wings. (John McCain when he was the Anti-Bush) 2. When liberals accuse conservatives of something, the press' idea of balance is to get a denial from the conservative without addressing the fundemental truthfulness of the claim. When a conservative accuses a liberal of something, the press will do its own research and try to refute the conservative charge with data.

Posted by jamannn | October 9, 2007 2:27 PM