The Media and Negativity

by Ruth A. Sheets

Recently, I heard on the radio that Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is planning to run for a third term.  The news reader had to immediately remind everyone that last year Mr. Menendez had been on trial for bribery.  After she reviewed aspects of the case, she said the prosecution had dismissed all charges.  Wow!  Announce someone running for office, someone who has served his state for more than a decade and the only thing you can say about him is that he had been tried for bribery with dismissed charges?  What about that he supports health care rights for all, stands for voting rights, and has helped numerous New Jersey citizens in a variety of other ways.  A quick personal story would have been effective.

This news item made me realize what media's role is in our politics and it's not good for our democracy.  It is the, Remind everyone of the candidate's negative attributes.  What is gained from this negativism toward certain candidates?   

During the 2016 election, it took months for someone in the mainstream media to call Mr. Trump's prevarications "lies."  I understand it is hard to imagine a presidential candidate lying so openly, but that's what he was doing.  It is interesting that we were not constantly reminded what Mr. Trump was saying was replete with falsehoods.  Why didn't the media do that? 

From reporters, we learned nearly everything we needed to know about Mr. Trump's positions, or at least those at the moment.  We learned very little, if anything about those of any of his opponents, even in the general election, but we sure did learn their negative attributes and what Mr. Trump thought of them.  The mainstream media and others kept us well informed of these.  Why?

We heard over and over that Hillary Clinton had something "not quite right" with her emails and she was chastised by the FBI director Mr. Comey, yet he neglected to report that many others in high government positions were doing the same.  He also neglected to mention that frequent hacking of systems in Government may have meant Ms. Clinton's arrangement was not the worst thing she could have done.  The media covered "the email scandal" word for word, day by day, so everyone was primed when Mr. Comey came back and said he had found new emails, just before the election.  The media covered this, and in shocked tones before anyone found out the emails were ones the FBI had in its possession for months, maybe years. 

More disturbing, Mr. Comey neglected to talk about Russian interference in the campaign.  Even though the FBI was aware of it, he just couldn't bring himself to mention it.  The media let this pass.  It was hinted they all thought Ms. Clinton would win, so it wouldn't matter.  Uh huh.

What is going on?  We yell at Facebook for its permission giving political organizations access to member data and selling ad space related to the election to Russian trolls.  Yes, Facebook needs to answer for that, but the media at all levels needs to answer for its conduct in the previous election cycles.  Where were they? 

I don't remember a definition of the "free press" including amplifying negativity around some candidates while dismissing real problems of integrity on the part of others. 

Some of the media has jumped on the bandwagon of the Russia investigation, but is that as big an issue as Mr. Trump's next tweet, especially if it is a negative comment about someone whose politics or actions he doesn't like?  Already, NPR is being sustained by corporate sponsors who have their own agendas.  How much is this support determining what is covered on NPR's programs?  There is no way the support of the small listeners can match the money available from corporations.  The negative digs inserted into reports on candidates or public actors can influence citizens' voting response, after all, NPR . . .! 

I use NPR as an example, but it is happening everywhere in media.  Whatever one may think of Senator Menendez, he did not deserve the negative comments delivered at the time of his pre-announcement for running for office again.  Media actors need to examine more carefully where their loyalties lie.  They should be with truth, justice, and the American way, but I suspect these are not always their guiding stars. 

Do we have any indication that things will be different in 2018?  Not that I can tell.  Money is the medium.  We have allowed corporations to become enormous and have told them their money is speech in any capacity they choose, so unless the "free press" reports as a "free press" without the influence of money, we are in big trouble.

I am not commenting on Mr. Menendez's appropriateness for running again for the Senate, but if every time his name is mentioned, we hear the bells of "do you know what he did?" we are diminishing our political process.  I get it that "if it bleeds it leads," but there was no blood in Mr. Menendez's pre-announcement.  Why did NPR or any other medium feel it needed to make some?