PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Notable journalist James Fallows does a great job in a recent Atlantic Magazine article of outlining three problems for journalists these days – problems, to a large degree, of their own creation in the bid for the eyes and ears of the public.

But the problems also are abetted by the actions of various political figures as they appear to value ratings more than the public good.

I identify with the problems because, as the preamble to this blog notes, I started my professional career as a journalist, though clearly not at the level of Fallows and others with national and international bases.    

I was a local city reporter, but, still, the problems resonate with me.

They are:

• The embrace of false equivalence, or both-sides-ism;

• The campaign-manager mentality, or horse-race-ism;

• The love of spectacle, or going after the ratings and the clicks.

All of this is especially troubling in age of Donald Trump, an “age” I hope ends this fall with his defeat.

BOTH SIDES-ISM:  This, Fallows writes, is a shorthand term for most journalists’ discomfort with seeming to “take a side” in political disputes, and the contortions that result.

Of course, he adds, taking a side is fundamental to the act of journalism.

“Everything we write or broadcast is something we’re saying deserves more attention than what we’re not discussing.  The layout of a front page, in print or online; the airtime given to TV or radio reports; the tone and emphasis of headlines; and everything else down the list of communication tools reflect choices.

“When we investigate and present exposés, we are taking a side in favor of the importance of these subjects, and the fidelity of our account.

“But on the narrow, specific question of Republican-versus-Democratic disagreements, newspaper and broadcast reporters are profoundly uncomfortable with appearing to take a side.

“…One is a habitual, even reflexive presentation of claims or statements that a reporter knows are not of equivalent truthfulness, as if they were.”

Thus, the term “false equivalence” has been created as a shorthand way to indicate that competing perspectives, depicted by some journalists as being of equal weight, are actually not equally weighty.  The best example is by giving Trump’s lying justifications equal status with proven critiques of his actions.

Now, critics of Fallows – I am not one – could add this point about his “both-sideism” label:  Failing to report both sides could make the media into a dictator of sorts – dictating how people think about current events. 

If so, I say the risk is worth it because, otherwise, all we have is “false equivalence.”

HORSE-RACE-ISM:  Fallows writes about what he calls “the near-irresistible impulse (for reporters) to convert the substance of anything into how it would seem from a political operative’s point of view.”

So, we contend with continuing stories about elections as horse races – who’s supposedly ahead rather than details about their policy positions.

Fallows points to this example.  “Matt Viser of The Washington Post noted, in a tweet, that Joe Biden gave a speech about climate policy, and then got three questions from the press: What would be his message in Florida the next day? Why are his numbers among Hispanics so low? and, Are the gloves off?

“… questions like these are of enormous, in-the-minute fascination to political reporters.  But they have virtually nothing to do with most voters’ concerns at the election, and even less to do with what historians will say was at stake in our times.”

So, what does Fallows suggest as the solution?  Journalists should focus more on policy than on the horse race – which, I add, requires readers to be more thoughtful by being interested in policy, not who purports to be ahead.

THE SPECTACLE:  Entertainment, Fallows continues, will always draw a bigger audience than news.

During 2015 and 2016, he adds, the audiences drawn by Trump’s spectacles proved irresistible for TV programmers.   Now the novelty has worn off, and the audience has been distilled to the believers.  But still you can see the temptation to cover whatever he does, live, and — most of all — to be diverted by his latest stunt or outrage.

“Trump’s greatest strategic advantage is his ability to distract:  Forcing, or tempting, the public mind to forget what happened yesterday because of the new fireworks he has launched today.

“But if we have learned anything about Trump and his colleagues, it is to question their facts, as well as to be deadly earnest about their intent.”

Where does all this lead?

Who knows, but Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan put it well a few days ago.

“History will not judge us kindly about this weakness of the media. But there is time to adjust.  Every American institution is now being tested.  From the police to the postal service, the judiciary to voting systems, public health to education, and city councils to the U.S. Senate — all of them, all of us, are undergoing stresses we hadn’t anticipated, enduring blows that are falling from all directions, all at once.”

We, as citizens, should not escape Sullivan’s commentary.

As we prepare to vote in a few weeks, we should be ever more vigilant about how we interpret information from the media. 

I say the best approaches are, (a) to be skeptical (not cynical) about what we read and see, (b) to rely on multiple sources, not just one with inherent biases, and (c) to form our own judgments rather than to accept false equivalence, the horse race, and entertainment over genuine news.