Media outlets have a tremendous level of responsibility for the type of news they disseminate; however, some outlets don’t always circulate news as sensibly as they should. By failing to distribute news in a responsible manner, select media outlets do considerably more harm than good, because in some instances, their actions promote propaganda.
Consider the instance of the young boy who, while visiting the Cincinnati Zoo, got into a gorilla enclosure. Video shows a 400-pound gorilla rapidly pulling the toddler by his feet through water.
Zoo officials eventually shot and killed the gorilla, a decision for which acclaimed animal experts voiced their support.
As thousands of people displayed their outrage over the killing of the animal and thousands more publicly supported the zoo’s decision, “FOX & Friends” co-host Ainsley Earhardt opted to report on the criminal history of the child’s father. During an interview she conducted days after the incident, Earhardt said, “Some say the parents need to be charged, bringing up the dad’s past criminal history.” Earhardt’s co-host, Brian Kilmeade, cited the father’s “lengthy criminal history” and asked if someone was to blame.
But here’s where Earhardt and Kilmeade were irresponsible in their reporting: The child’s father was not even at the zoo when the incident occurred, so there was no reason to bring his past into the equation. Furthermore, the father’s criminal record is not extensive. As a matter of fact, he served a one-year sentence in 2006 and has not been in trouble since.
Earhardt and Kilmeade were promoting propaganda that has plagued the Black community for generations: that we are irresponsible, uneducated criminals. Making such generalizations hurts us — from the perspective of how others see us and of how we see ourselves.
Journalists must maintain their integrity and, with the exception of commentaries, they should be neutral in their approach to news content. Journalists also have the skill set and experience to determine what is newsworthy and what isn’t. Some of my fellow journalists on a national level have failed at this, relative to the current political landscape.
Enter Donald Trump.
Throughout his campaign, the Republican presidential candidate has blatantly disrespected women — either by making offensive remarks about their looks, attacking their ability to lead or by making statements that are clearly sexual innuendos. He has been called a misogynist, and his actions prove such. But now, he wants to protect himself from the misogyny by obsessing over something that occurred two decades ago. Trump’s infatuation with continuously bringing up former President Bill Clinton’s adulterous past is beyond played out, yet the media continues to give Trump coverage regarding his attacks. I don’t understand why such topics are of interest during this presidential campaign, or any other campaign for that matter; however, if media feels the need to cover such topics, at least they should do so fairly — from all aspects, which would include mention of Trump’s extramarital affairs and misogynistic ways. Responsible journalists would also dig back and reference other politicians — male or female — who have committed such acts.
So far, I haven’t read or watched a nationally known journalist report in such an in-depth manner, except New York Times columnist Charles Blow.
In a recent column, Blow named several politicians who criticized Bill Clinton for having an affair while they themselves also had affairs. Among the several individuals Blow cited were Newt Gingrich, who was a central force in leading Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, former House Speaker Robert Livingston, and Dan Burton, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chair, who has been referred to as one of Clinton’s “most combative and persistent critics.” Gingrich, Livingston and Burton were all involved in extramarital affairs during Clinton’s impeachment process.
And while reporting on all aspects of such topics would at least make things more fair and balanced, the fact is, such topics heavily affect the public’s perception of the politician. At least that was the case with Clinton.
On Aug. 20, 1998, Gallup released results of a poll that spoke volumes.
Here are some highlights:
The poll asked respondents how they ranked Bill Clinton after he admitted to having “inappropriate” relations with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Of those polled, 53 percent viewed Clinton favorably while 43 percent gave him an unfavorable ranking.
The poll asked respondents their thoughts of Hillary Clinton at that time. Overwhelmingly, 60 percent of people viewed her favorably, with 34 percent giving her an unfair ranking.
Another question posed in the poll was, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Clinton is handling his job as president?” The response was similar to Hillary’s, with 61 percent of people approving the former president’s job performance and 34 percent disapproving.
One way to decrease misconceptions and stereotypes is through responsible journalism. Hopefully journalists will remember the foundation of our purpose and strive to more accurately disseminate news rather than promoting propaganda.
