I happened to see some CNN this morning, they were reporting on the upcoming presidential election as a dead heat with Trump appearing more trust-worthy than Clinton. This was somewhat shocking to me as the state level polls are fairly consistent. Iowa is looking particularly odd, although Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Colorado are looking like a firewall. Why would they report this way?
First, they need energy and excitement. I am not a journalist, I study the social networking industry and do social network analysis. My publication rhythm is really slow. Regular blogging is the extent of what I try to write quickly. Unlike a newspaper reporter or worse a cable television journalist, I have the benefit of time. If a week passes with no interesting polls or media events or twitter feuds, I can avoid writing. Cable news can’t go so much as three hours without a new story to report on. Explanation of poor reporting one: the timing of the legacy media requires the production of substantial volumes of inferior quality work.
Second, there is bias on the part of news organizations. This is inevitable. Generally, this does not mean axe grinding. For most folks, trying to do a good job, their bias is expressed through the selection of frames that are available for writing their huge volumes of stories. For Clinton, this means trying to write a 1990s style ‘scandal’ story. For Trump, this means writing about his narcissism, which he might actually enjoy. Both of these frames are then dropped into the horse-race meta-frame and you have a strange, stilted way of covering the election. Just to be clear, there isn’t a truly objective way to cover any of this, and we shouldn’t pretend that there is. At the same time, this does not mean that there are not better and worse ways to cover the election.
Third, the frames that are available for journalists are designed with a false balance in mind. The generic frame that you would fill out to compose a low-quality election story won’t have one side clearly winning. Strong positions don’t make a mild, low-risk story. False balance is so appealing because it should mitigate risk. If none of the stories really say anything, no one will be that upset, and if they are upset it is because they are grinding a partisan axe. The editor gets plausible deniability. The public gets nothing. Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit nailed this sort of reason: a liar is morally superior to a bullshitter (someone who simply talks without regards for the truth or reality) as the liar at least knows and holds a regard for the truth.
In general, the future is not bright for cable news. As the carriage transition begins, folks might actually get to decide if they want to pay for CNN. My guess is that they will chose not to. A few years ago the idea of the Weather Channel dropping to the mere value of a toss-in for a sweeter deal for weather tech. At least FNC and MSNBC have the clarity to make clear and consistent arguments. Viewers reward this by tuning in. CNN might be avoiding all the risk of taking a stand, but they will lose in the long run.