I submit that when a conveyer of
the news becomes the story, something is wrong; in typing this sentence
initially, I did not include I submit that. To state my thesis statement
as if it were a fact of reason (Kant’s phrase) seemed to me rather heavy-handed
(i.e., arrogant). Similarly, when some Americans insisted after the U.S.
presidential that Don Trump had won as if the asseveration were a fact of
reason, I could sense aggressiveness along with the presumptuousness in
treating one’s own opinion as a declaration of fact, especially if the actual
fact—Joe Biden being sworn into the office—was otherwise. Opinion is one thing;
fact is another. When a person misconstrues one’s opinion with fact, something
is wrong. I believe this happens so often that it may be due to a problem
innate in the human brain. Religious folks would not have to reach far to point
out that in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the sin of pride manifests
in wanting to be omniscient; eating of that proverbial apple of the knowledge
of good and evil ushers in original sin. A person perceiving one’s own opinion
as fact, or even as important as fact, implicitly regards oneself as God. A
journalist who interlards one’s role in conveying the news with one’s own
commentary, and an editor who then makes that commentary the point of a story both
treat a means (i.e., the conveyer of news) as an end (i.e., the news itself). I
contend that at least by 2023, American journalism had fallen into this hole
with impunity, which involved a lack of industry self-regulation and individual
self-discipline.
On July 4, 2023, The Huffington Post ran a story, “CNN Journalist Responds to Brazen Trump Campaign Claim with Disbelief.” The story begins with the following statement: “CNN’s Phil Mattingly on Monday couldn’t quite believe a Trump campaign response to a Washington Post question about the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result.”[1] Why should it matter whether a journalist can’t quite believe a statement made by a person being interviewed? CNN also ran the story, "Anderson Cooper Is Dumbfounded by Ron DeSantis' Bad Polling Excuse." The news network reported that the "CNN anchor was confused by the 2024 Republican presidential candidate's reason for falling behind Donald Trump." Why should it matter that the journalist was confused? Maybe he was not the brightest lightbulb. The network's message was obviously that DeSantis was to blame for the journalist's confusion, so the intent was to bias the viewers and readers against the presidential candidate. The inclusion of the word, excuse, in the story's title indicates the tenor of the bias in the "news" story.
Is it ethical for a journalist to sway or bias the reactions of viewers or readers? Euronews, a E.U. rather than a U.S. news network, explicitly espouses impartiality so viewers can form their own opinions unimpeded by that of a journalist. That network even has a feature in which video is shown of events going on around the world, such as a political protest, with “No Comment” showing at the end. What a contrast to the American news media!
CNN’s obsession with the visible reactions of one of its news anchors, Anderson Cooper, to political statements even of people being interviewed illustrates my thesis. From his “news” show, Anderson Cooper 360, the network posted a video on CNN.com entitled “Watch Cooper’s Reaction to What Sondland Told Trump.” His reaction was visibly nothing spectacular.
.png)
Another video had the title, “See Anderson Cooper’s Reaction to Ted Cruz ‘Groveling’ on Fox.” Again, the reaction was hardly noteworthy.
.png)
Nevertheless, his show on the new network
all about the anchor, as the very name of the show makes explicit. CNN’s CEO
must have thought that the anchor’s reactions would make good promotional
material for the network. Strangely, a magazine’s editor even thought that
Anderson Cooper’s reactions were of value apart from promotional purposes. People
posted a story online about the CNN anchor’s reactions in a New Year’s Eve
broadcast from Times Square in New York City. The story, “Anderson
Cooper Was All of Us with His Hilarious Reactions as He Took Shots to Bid 2020
Farewell,” featured the celebrity’s reaction to drinking a shot of
alcohol on live television. After he and the other host drank a shot, “Cooper
pursed his lips and coughed in seemingly slight discomfort, though he otherwise
held it together.”[2]
Hilarious.
It may be that Anderson Cooper’s minute reactions were such important fodder for publications because the anchor’s mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, was an heiress of an illustrious (and very rich) American family. She was a businesswoman, fashion designer, socialite, and writer in her own right. Interestingly, she had offered at the age of 85 to carry a baby for her gay son. That in itself was more newsworthy than any of her son’s muted political reactions on air. Of course, when Anderson Cooper had come out as gay on air, that too was deemed to be newsworthy in spite the journalistic standard that the sexual orientation (or race, gender, or political ideology) of a conveyer of news shouldn’t have an impact on the presentation of the news.
When a journalist becomes the story, especially in expressing a personal opinion, news itself (and journalism) becomes obfuscated, diluted, and even toxic from the standpoint of the role of an electorate in a democracy. The societal justification in giving journalists an outsized mouthpiece in public discourse is predicated on their function in conveying the news. This does not extend to molding public opinion and being the news themselves. In a culture in which reality-shows spawn celebrities, perhaps it is only natural that anyone on television could be made into one even for displaying muted visible reactions.
1. Lee Moran, “CNN
Journalist Responds to Brazen Trump Campaign Claim with Disbelief,” The
Huffington Post, July 4, 2023.
2. Jen Juneau, “Anderson Cooper Was All of Us with His Hilarious Reactions as He Took Shots to Bid 2020 Farewell,” People, January 1, 2021.
