Interviewing Conspiracy Theorists: Irresponsible Journalism?

Great Debates
1

I was listening to KROQ (a local rock radio staion in Los Angeles) and they were interviewing the guy who created the documentary “Loose Change” which is a “documentray” highlighting the U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 attack. Needless to say I was getting angrier with every inciteful, dishonest word out of his mouth.

But soon my anger turned out the hosts of the show (let me say, the hosts are not exactly top tier journalists, simply morning radio jocks), for bringing this guy on. They would mix in a fairly probing question with something like, “Well you sure raise a lot of interesting question”. When they asked a tough question it was spun and evaded expertly and they rarely followed up with any vigor.

Then the guy said he had been interviewed or featured in all sorts of mainstream newspapers, TV (Chicage Sun-Times, Village Voice, MSNBC) and I just thought to myself, “Why are they giving this guy a voice?”

So the question is this (btw, I am not in any way suggesting a kind of law or censorship or anything):

Should thoroughly discredited conspiracy theorists like this be given any time or attention by the press?

I understand the desire by the press to cover a story that is out there, and this “Loose Change” is well known so I guess they think they need to get him on.

When they do bring them on, should they be vigorous in their critique?

Do you think that any publicity is good publicity? If they go on a show like Anderson Cooper and the guy AC manages to make him out to be a fool, do you think it still adds fuel to the fire?

2

I think a big problem is that many media people are morons. Take Larry King for example and his credulous take on the paranormal.

For someone like the Loose Change director, having them on with a skilled debunker is OK. Interviewing them in the interest of presenting the “other side” is not a good idea IMHO as it makes it look like there are two equally valid sides. It’s like creation “science”.

3

Frankly upbraiding anyone in the major media for “irresponsible journalism” these days is a waste of time. The concept of journalistic integrity has evaporated as part of the mad rush to get the ratings, and any idiot who will attract attention is going to get plenty of interviews. Demanding that “thoroughly discredited” loonies be barred from the air is a lost cause, because big chunks of the audience clearly don’t mind them. (Ann Coulter, for instance.) In some cases there’s an audience that will only accept discredited losers; anyone who defends intelligent design is discredited, but they’ll still get plenty of opportunities to chatter. For that matter, on some shows the host has also been exposed as a fraud (Nancy Grace), yet the audience cares very little.

As for vigorous critiques, that’s another lost cause, with the exception of Jon Stewart.

4

We in the field of journalism have always believed that ignorance, lies, bigotry, corruption and other bad things are “creatures of the darkness” – they cannot survive in bright light. It is our self-imposed duty to shine a light on all the ugliness we can find, lest people forget that it’s out there, thus allowing it to grow and propagate unbeknownst to the innocents it will surely harm.

In the case of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the radio jocks did exactly the right thing. What was your reaction? You were incredulous, disbelieving. You think the conspiracy theorist is a nut. And you’re right. And most of the people you talk to will agree – the guy’s a nut. (In addition, the jocks were providing what we call “good radio” – if it glued your ear to the radio, for whatever reason, they’ve done what they get paid to do.)

No one wants to see mold growing in the shower. But it’s there, and you can’t clean it up if you can’t see it. If you leave the light off and ignore it, it just grows and stinks worse and worse.

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when most Americans thought racial bigotry was on its way out the door, that racist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party were all but defunct. We know differently, only because journalists insisted on continuing to shine the light into the dark corners where the evil bred.

Conspiracy theorists aren’t just harmless crackpots. If allowed to quietly spread their lies and paranoia, they can poison the wellspring of public opinion. Their perfidy must be spotlighted, however distasteful it may be. And if a couple of second-rate radio personalities can get some good listenership in the bargain, well, that’s good, too.

Having said that, I have to say that **DanBlather ** raises an important point – we do have the responsibility to make judgement decisions on who has credibility and who doesn’t. Most local TV and radio news folks don’t bother with this – they’re so bound up in ratings brawls they can’t be bothered to offer balance. The big networks (except Fox, of course) at least make an attempt at balance, but even they fail spectacularly sometimes. Newspapers do a better job because they have 24 hours between news cycles, and that’s a lot of time to do background research these days.

My advice to anyone who really wants the “truth” (or, at least, enough unvarnished facts to arrive at your own version of it) is to READ! I highly recommend US News & World Report. It’s a little conservative, but there’s nothing wrong with that. If you have time to read more than one facet of any story, regularly log on to Salon.com and Slate.com – they’re both very good, but both have easily discernable biases. TIME and Newsweek are good working-class newsweeklies, and both are unfairly branded as “liberal” by the neoconservatives in power in Washington.

5

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” has been attributed to Brandeis. I agree that it is good and ethical to provide a soapbox to wackos and liars. However, an honest journalist has an obligation to let his audience know that they have just heard a bald-faced lie. I don’t mean spin, angle, or viewpoint. I’m talking about statements that are completely, provably false.

6

The problem is that most “journalists” (particularly in radio and TV) don’t do their homework, or bring on a counter-voice. The idea of “let’s give this guy 10 minutes” sounds innocent enough until you realize there’s a sizable chunk of the audience who believes “they wouldn’t put it on if it weren’t true.”

A bunch of non-experts can pretty much whack down any nutjob (simply refer to any number of GD threads on any number of nutjob conspiracies), but the debunkers have to be at least as thorough as the nutjobs.

7

Mr. Razor who gets to decide. The news stations that trumpeted Jon Benet stories for years at a time. OJ overload . You are ratings whores and will toss an important story for celebrity gossip in a second.
It is about money after all.

8

The fundamental problem is that the media, out of laziness and/or cowardice, tends to give “equal time” to both sides of an argument, even when the most cursory probing will reveal that one side has facts and logic and the other side has lies and bullshit.

9

This is almost never true. Each side feels the evidence bears them out and they are being fair. One mans conspiracy is another mans undisputable facts. Who gets to pin the label?

10

Journalists are supposed to. It’s why we’re called gatekeepers. It’s why newspapers have opinion and editorial pages. It’s what editors are supposed to do – weigh the facts and make judgements on story play and placement, etc. Unfortunately, when the FCC emasculated broadcasters in the 1970s with the “Fairness Doctrine,” print journalists saw how much easier it was for broadcasters to just give everybody equal time and equal access, and so print folks started doing the same thing and calling it “fairness.” But it isn’t fair – it isn’t fair to the guy who really has a point or to the reader (or listener, for that matter.) It isn’t fairness at all, it’s equality carried to the absurd degree. Meanwhile, everyone has lost sight of the original intent of the Fairness Doctrine, so even that isn’t truly fair.

When I edited newspapers, my position was, we own the press, we get to decide what is said on the pages. Many people actually had the erroneous notion that I was required to print their letters to the editor. Now, rather than make arguments for what’s right, everybody just does what’s easy.

11

It should be noted again that the complacent interviewers in the OP were radio DJs, not anyone pretending to be journalists.

It’s still the responsibility of any media outlet that gives a platform to conspiracy theorists or any other group promoting nonsense, to ask probing questions and hold the kooks and quacks accountable. You don’t award free publicity to potentially dangerous people in order to jack up ratings.

Media outlets that do this have to be held accountable as well - a tiresome but necessary job.

12

Well, if the interviewee is Osama bin Laden or someone else who is truly dangerous, yes – in fact, a couple of radio jox have no business interviewing anyone who needs to be handled seriously. Radio personalities are after one thing and only one thing – ratings. It’s what they (we, since I do, in fact, work for a radio station now) do. We in radio have no delusions about saving the world or having a strict code of ethics. We in radio are not in business to preserve the republic. We exist for one reason and one reason only – to make a profit. Newspapers do, too, but they just won’t admit it. So no, the radio disc jockeys have no responsibility except to the bottom line. I know, media “critics” don’t like it, but it’s true. We will promote anyone or anything that makes us money, directly or indirectly, and does not clearly endanger human life For instance, we would never urge someone to play in traffic, no matter how much money you pay us. But if a conspiracy theory group bought advertising to say the 9/11 commission lied in its report, we’d probably put in on the air – under the conditions of all political advertising, of course. Churches, Kiwanis Clubs, shoe stores, Wal-Mart, the Flat Earth Society – they all have to pay, and they all get on the air.

So when some nutcase comes along and allows a couple of jocks to mock him on the air … why the hell not? And without having heard the broadcast, I can’t know whether they actually mocked the guy or not. But radio audiences are pretty sophisticated these days. The intelectually lazy have all pretty much decamped to satellite radio – the people who are left are the ones who love the air personalities and are in on the joke with them.

13

Crap! I meant to preview, accidentally posted. Let me clarify:

The listeners we have are fairly intellectually astute. There are some intellectual giants who also listen to satellite radio, I have no doubt. But satellite doesn’t make you work for the fun the way broadcast radio often does. We can do live shows from your hometown, and responding to that tends to take some effort. People who don’t want to do that, who only want music and ear candy, have left the broadcast audience.

Is this any clearer?

14

How about this one - you have a chance to interview an alternative medical practitioner who claims that all cancers are due to a common cause which doctors ignore, and that while mainstream medical treatment is ineffective she knows what works and will sell you the cure.

Do you put that person on the air with no challenges or qualified guests to provide rebuttal, so that she can make money - even though it’s likely a certain number of gullible people will ignore a chance at a real cure and pursue the quack remedy?

I know that this principle has been eroded over the years, but radio stations (and other broadcast outlets) operate on public-owned frequencies, and have a responsibility to serve the public. And that means not operating as a platform for nutcases in order to make money. If you can’t handle the responsibility, your license should be passed on to someone who can.

15

I’m all in favour of giving air time to whackos

  • it shows them up as idiots
  • if idiots believe them, well, they would believe anything

I vaguely remember that it was television that showed up Joe McCarthy as a buffoon.

As an aside, I have often been surprized how adept interviewers avoid direct debunking, they let people use their own rope, which is a lot more effective starting an argument.

16

Depends. If I’m a morning radio personality trying to entertain worker drones during the morning commute or in their cubicles, I’ll try to get some mileage out of putting the guy on and either mocking him or playing it for a few laughs. Maybe I’ll just do a “sympathetic” interview, and save the mocking and other stuff for later. I’ll do whatever keeps my audience’s ears glued to their radios. That’s what I get paid for.

If I’m a serious interviewer on NPR, I’ll do background work first, consult with some MDs I know and try my best to ask challenging and probing questions. I’ll even get a little adversarial if I have to, to make the guy defend himself medically. If time and the show’s format allow, I’ll also interview an MD (preferably from a medical school) for his/her take.

If I’m a local news director, I’ll do a brief interview, get about 20 seconds of audio for a clip and maybe (again, if time allows) get a sentence or two from a medico for “balance.”

And if I’m a ad salesman for a radio station, I’d sell her advertising. No, that’s not flippant or sarcastic – it’s what we do.

17

However it opened a door for tv and radio stations to present one side one view 24 hrs a day. This is propaganda. There are lots of stations that have become anti-jounalists. The term has ceased to have meaning. Local news readers describe themselves as journalists.