Why the News Is Not the Truth
by Peter Vanderwicken
From the Magazine (May–June 1995)
News and the Culture of Lying: How Journalism Really Works, Paul H. Weaver (The Free Press, 1994).
Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America, Cynthia Crossen (Simon & Schuster, 1994).
The U.S. press, like the U.S. government, is a corrupt and troubled institution. Corrupt not so much in the sense
that it accepts bribes but in a systemic sense. It fails to do what it claims to do, what it should do, and what
society expects it to do.
A. The news media and the government are entwined in a vicious circle of mutual manipulation, mythmaking,
and self-interest. Journalists need crises to dramatize news, and government officials need to appear to be
responding to crises. Too often, the crises are not really crises but joint fabrications. The two institutions
have become so ensnared in a symbiotic web of lies that the news media are unable to tell the public what is
true and the government is unable to govern effectively. That is the thesis advanced by Paul H. Weaver, a
former political scientist, journalist, and corporate communications executive in his provocative analysis
entitled News and the Culture of Lying: How Journalism Really Works.
B. The news media and the government have created a charade that serves their own interests but misleads the
public. Officials oblige the media’s need for drama by fabricating crises and stage-managing their responses,
thereby enhancing their own prestige and power. Journalists dutifully report those fabrications. Both parties
know the articles are self-aggrandizing manipulations and fail to inform the public about the more complex
but boring issues of government policy and activity.
C. What has emerged, Weaver argues, is a culture of lying. “The culture of lying,” he writes, “is the discourse and
behavior of officials seeking to enlist the powers of journalism in support of their goals, and of journalists
seeking to co-opt public and private officials into their efforts to find and cover stories of crisis and
emergency response. It is the medium through which we Americans conduct most of our public business
(and a lot of our private business) these days.” The result, he says, is a distortion of the constitutional role of
government into an institution that must continually resolve or appear to resolve crises; it functions in “a
new and powerful permanent emergency mode of operation.”
D. The architect of the transformation was not a political leader or a constitutional convention but Joseph
Pulitzer, who in 1883 bought the sleepy New York World and in 20 years made it the country’s largest
newspaper. Pulitzer accomplished that by bringing drama to news—by turning news articles into stories with
a plot, actors in conflict, and colorful details. In the late nineteenth century, most newspaper accounts of
government actions were couched in institutional formats, much like the minutes of a board meeting and
about as interesting. Pulitzer turned them into stories with a sharp dramatic focus that both implied and
aroused intense public interest. Most newspapers of the time looked like the front page of the Wall Street
Journal still does. Pulitzer made stories dramatic by adding blaring headlines, big pictures, and eye-catching
graphics. His journalism took events out of their dry, institutional contexts and made them emotional rather
than rational, immediate rather than considered, and sensational rather than informative. The press became
a stage on which the actions of government were a series of dramas.
E. Pulitzer’s journalism has become a model for the multistage theater of recent decades. The rise of television
has increased the demand for drama in news, and the explosion in lobbyists and special-interest groups has
expanded the number of actors and the range of conflicts.
F. The press corrupts itself, the public policy process, and the public’s perceptions, Weaver argues, when it
seeks out and propagates dueling cover stories, with their drama, conflict, and quotable advocates, but fails
to discover or report the underlying realities. The press prints the news but not the truth. It reports in detail
the competing propaganda of the conflicting interests but largely neglects the substance of the issue in
conflict. A recent example is the coverage of the health care debate. The Media Research Center studied the
television networks’ evening newscasts between June 15 and July 15, 1994. Of the 68 reports on health care
reform, 56 focused on political aspects, and only 12 dealt with the economic or individual impacts of various
proposals, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.
G. The media’s practice of focusing on the manipulators and their machinations rather than on substantive
issues is perhaps unavoidable because it reflects several aspects of American culture. Personalities are more
compelling than institutions, facts are often uncertain, attention spans (and television sound bites) are brief,
and simplification—often oversimplification—is the norm. But the media’s focus on façades has several
consequences.
H. One is that news can change perceptions, and perceptions often become reality. Adverse leaks or innuendos
about a government official often lead to his or her loss of influence, resignation, or dismissal. The stock
market is also fertile ground for planted stories. Rumors or allegations spread by short sellers often drive a
stock’s price down. There may be nothing wrong with either the official’s performance or the stock’s value,
but the willingness of the press to report innuendos and rumors as news changes reality. The subjects of such
reports, which are usually fabrications created by opponents, must be prepared to defend themselves
instantly. The mere appearance of a disparaging report in the press changes perceptions and, unless
effectively rebutted, will change reality and the truth. That is why government officials and politicians—and,
increasingly, companies and other institutions—pay as much attention to communications as to policy.
I. Perhaps the most serious consequence of journalists’ focus on crises and conflicts is that both they and the
public become blind to systemic issues. The focus on the politics of Gramm-Rudman obscured the fact that,
for complex institutional reasons, government spending and deficits were continuing to rise. The
savings-and-loan debacle of the 1980s became so large and costly because the press was unable to focus on it
until it became a crisis. The legislative mistakes and policy failures that had caused it were too complex, too
hard to explain, and too boring. Until there was a rash of savings-and-loan failures, enabling the press to
show front-page pictures of angry depositors trying to withdraw their money, there was no news and no
crisis, and government was unable to respond.
J. The debate on health care reform of the past two years could prove to be a turning point in the destructive
cycle. When people don’t have personal experience or sound information, they can easily be persuaded by a
crisis story. The Alar pesticide scare of 1989 is one example. Alar was a pesticide sprayed on apples, and
studies for the Environmental Protection Agency found that it caused tumors in laboratory animals that had
been given high doses. Many apple growers had already stopped using it; by 1989, Alar was sprayed on less
than 40%, and perhaps as little as 5%, of the country’s apples. But an environmental activist group thought
that the EPA was too slow to ban it outright. The group did a statistical study called a risk assessment, based
on dubious data, and concluded that Alar was dangerous to children, who eat more apples than adults do
relative to their body weight. It arranged for its study to be released in an exclusive story on CBS’s 60
Minutes, and the result was a national panic.
K. The press swarmed on the story, which had all the necessary dramatic elements: a foot-dragging
bureaucracy, a study finding that the country’s favorite fruit was poisoning its children, and movie stars
opposing the pesticide. Sales of apples collapsed. Within months, Alar’s manufacturer withdrew it from the
market, although both the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration stated that they believed Alar levels
on apples were safe. The outcry simply overwhelmed scientific evidence.
L. That happens all too often, Cynthia Crossen argues in her book Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in
America. Crossen focuses on how advocates of policy positions and companies promoting products misuse
scientific research to further their objectives.
M. Wary of making decisions based on opinion or belief, the U.S. public has come to rely on facts, data, surveys,
and presumably scientific studies. People are increasingly reluctant to believe any assertion that is not
supported by statistical research. Yet, Crossen writes, “more and more of the information we use to buy,
elect, advise, acquit and heal has been created not to expand our knowledge but to sell a product or advance a
cause.”
N. Companies routinely use research studies to promote products or positions. White bread won’t cause you to
gain weight and is nutritious, a study by the Cooper Institute for Aerobic Research found. Its sponsor: the
maker of Wonder Bread. Chocolate may actually inhibit cavities, concluded a study by the Princeton Dental
Resource Center, which is funded by Mars, the maker of M&M’s and other chocolate candies. The U.S.
public’s faith in so-called scientific research gives the studies impact, even when they contradict common
sense and are patently self-serving. “Most members of the media are ill-equipped to judge a technical study,”
Crossen correctly points out. “Even if the science hasn’t been explained or published in a U.S. journal, the
media may jump on a study if it promises entertainment for readers or viewers. And if the media jump, that
is good enough for many Americans.”
O. Crossen is particularly critical of the overuse and misuse of polls. How questions are worded and how
samples are chosen can have a huge impact on the responses. In a 1992 mail-in questionnaire in an ad for
Ross Perot in TV Guide, one question read, “Should the President have the Line Item Veto to eliminate
waste?” Yes, 97% of respondents said. But when the question was reworded, “Should the President have the
Line Item Veto, or not?” and asked of a scientifically selected random sample, only 57% said yes.
P. The press loves polls and surveys. They’re a surefire way to get publicity—even if the survey is scientifically,
socially, or economically meaningless. The first question a smart public relations person asks a client is
“What can we do a survey about?” A survey, however inane or irrelevant, will get the client’s name in the
papers. A 1993 survey by the Southern Baptist Convention found that 46.1% of the people in Alabama risk
going to hell; Crossen doesn’t say how it arrived at that conclusion. A 1991 Roper survey found that 2% of
Americans may have been abducted by unidentified flying objects; Crossen doesn’t say who the sponsor was.
“That’s what surveys do,” a Roper pollster says. “They basically manufacture news.” Political scientist
Lindsay Rogers, by the way, coined the word pollster as a pejorative takeoff of the word huckster. Crossen
calls them “pollers.”
Q. Concocted or inaccurate surveys and studies taint our perceptions of what is true, and they distort public
policy debates. Crossen concurs with Weaver that the media’s desire for drama encourages the distortion and
corruption of public decision making. “The media are willing victims of bad information, and increasingly
they are producers of it. They take information from self-interested parties and add to it another layer of
self-interest—the desire to sell information.”
R. Both Crossen and Weaver end their books with lengthy lists of proposals for reforms. Crossen suggests that
high schools should teach students the basics of statistics and how to tell whether numbers are believable.
News organizations should train journalists in statistical analysis and should devote more space to describing
the research methodology. Every story about research should identify the sponsor and describe its interest in
the outcome or impact of the research. And the media should stop producing information that serves only to
feed their own interests.
S. Weaver’s solutions are more sweeping, fundamental, and difficult. He argues that the press should cover
crises and disasters less and political, social, and economic events more: less politics, more substance; less on
personalities, more on institutions. When the president holds a press conference, for example, the press
should cover all of its substance in a single article headed “Presidential Press Conference.”
T. That is quixotic and will never happen. It would be a return to pre-Pulitzer journalism. The media’s desire to
attract an audience and the audience’s inability to concentrate for long would make such a format impossible.
Equally unrealistic is another of Weaver’s recommendations. He urges news organizations to “establish a
culture of responsibility and deliberation.” Anyone who has ever been in a newsroom at deadline knows how
far that notion is from reality. Weaver also suggests that the media’s focus should be reoriented toward
readers and away from advertisers and that media monopolies should be broken up. The rapid advance of
information age technology—hundreds of cable television channels, the growth of specialized media, the
spread of computer information resources—is certain to give citizens access to far more diverse sources of
information and is likely to force the media to reinvent the ways in which they present news and other
information.
U. The change in U.S. government would be revolutionary and would over time reduce the pressures on
businesses to respond instantly to attacks and crises. For some years to come, however, businesses are likely
to need more corporate propagandists, not fewer.
Multiple Choice Questions:
1. What does Paul H. Weaver argue has happened to the role of government due to its relationship with the
media?
A) It has become more efficient at solving crises.
B) It is operating in a permanent emergency mode.
C) It focuses more on boring policy issues.
D) It is no longer influenced by the media.
2. Joseph Pulitzer's influence on journalism was significant because:
A) He made news stories more dramatic and emotional.
B) He preferred dry, institutional reports.
C) He stopped newspapers from using headlines and pictures.
D) He avoided covering government actions.
3. According to Cynthia Crossen, why are scientific studies often misleading in the media?
A) Journalists are too trained in statistical analysis.
B) The studies are always unbiased and factual.
C) Studies are used by companies to sell products or advance causes.
D) The media always focuses on factual news stories.
Short Answer Questions:
1. What is the main criticism Paul H. Weaver makes about the relationship between the government and the
news media?
2. How did Joseph Pulitzer change the format of news reporting?
3. Why does Cynthia Crossen believe that polls and surveys are often unreliable?
4. According to the text, what effect can the media’s focus on personalities and conflicts have on public policy
issues?
Here are 8 headings for sections of the text. Put them in the correct positions. Each heading can
cover many paragraphs.
I. The Case of the Alar Pesticide Scare
II. Paul H. Weaver's "Culture of Lying"
III. Cynthia Crossen on the Manipulation of Facts in Media
IV. Proposals for Reforming Journalism
V. Joseph Pulitzer's Influence on Modern Journalism
VI. The Media's Role in Crisis Creation and Public Perception
VII. Media and Government's Symbiotic Relationship
VIII. The Misuse of Polls and Surveys
