春水堂视频

By Elizabeth Skewes

In American politics today, it鈥檚 an 鈥淯s vs. Them鈥� world, and the media have been thrust into the center of the debate. At rally after rally, President Donald Trump calls out what he says is fake news and he often points to the reporters in the back of the room and says they鈥檙e the source of the problem.

But for those who work in this world鈥攊ncluding policy makers, policy shapers and journalists鈥攖he polarization that underscores political debate is both less real, since the majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle on most issues, and more troubling, since the hyper-partisan rhetoric can get in the way of developing good policy.

Heidi Wagner, a 1986 journalism graduate who is the senior vice president of government affairs and policy for Global Blood Therapeutics Inc., says that the presidents鈥攚ho have the 鈥渂ully pulpit鈥濃�� can do a lot of damage with an ill-informed or off-the-cuff comment.

鈥淚 remember once when President Clinton made a comment about patents. It took billions and billions out of the biotech industry in one day,鈥� Wagner says. 鈥淎s a president you have to be really careful about what you say.鈥�

That鈥檚 especially true of complex issues, such as health care, she adds. The听24/7 news cycle听and spin on cable news and in social media听have led to greater misunderstanding, as these stories get distilled down to a win or loss for the current administration.

鈥淚t鈥檚 about the headline and the soundbite,鈥� Wagner says, adding that Trump 鈥渋s so driven by what鈥檚 going to be that days鈥� upswing and whatever his perceived acceptance is, and lashes out at things. That has made the media very important and very dangerous. When he is so driven by public opinion and public support, it puts the onus on how media reports these things, and nine out of 10 times, they don鈥檛 get health care right.鈥�

Carl Cannon, a 1975 journalism graduate and Washington, D.C., bureau chief for , says that part of the reason for journalism鈥檚 challenges is a business model that got upended by the Internet and that is still struggling to find its footing in digital spaces.

But part of it, he says, is the hubris of the old journalism model.

鈥淚 mean, Walter Cronkite used to have a sign-off something like, 鈥楢nd that鈥檚 the way it was.鈥� Really? With this stentorian voice鈥攊t鈥檚 like Zeus from Mount Olympus.鈥�

Journalism 2.0, Cannon says, had the promise of being more inclusive of a broad range of ideologies and perspectives through crowd sourcing information.

鈥淭o use the CBS example, Dan Rather did that story on George W. Bush鈥檚 military service and it was wrong. And it turns out that there鈥檚 100 people in the United States who know about typewriter fonts from the 鈥�60s, and it was an example of how people can inform a story, and we thought maybe this new system can work,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut then it degenerated into just the worst kind of partisanship and ad hominem attacks and name-calling and shaming.鈥�

And the name-calling and shaming have led to a nation that is more polarized than ever, according to research conducted by the Pew Research Center, though interestingly the polarization hews mostly along political party lines. The Pew study looked at differences in opinions based on gender, race, age, education and religiosity, as well as political partisanship.

The opinion gap ranged from 7 percentage points between men and women to 14 percent based on racial identification. But for political party, the opinion gap spiked to 36 percent on issues that include race, immigration, welfare and defense strategy.

Cannon says that small differences are highlighted and amplified in online media outlets and especially with social media.

鈥淲e鈥檝e gone from people who used to look for what we had in common to what makes us different. The internet was supposed to bring us closer, and it has not made Americans closer鈥攊t has not been a unifying force. It鈥檚 been a divisive force,鈥� Cannon says. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 a technology, it鈥檚 a Rorschach test, it鈥檚 a mirror. It may be who we are.鈥�

For journalism, the challenge is to recalibrate to coverage that serves the public and that tones down the rhetoric of division.

鈥淲hat we have to figure out is how to import to the new technology what was good about the old model of journalism鈥攖he best rules we had,鈥� Cannon says. 鈥淥riginal sources, facts instead of opinion, accurate quotes, being fair to people. Just because FOX says they鈥檙e fair, that鈥檚 not a bad word. It鈥檚 a good word. Fair and balanced is good. We should really do it, though.鈥�

Wagner says that means being less driven by public opinion about an issue鈥攚hether in journalism or public policy鈥攁nd more driven by the public interest. 听

鈥淚 am a Pollyanna-ish in that I cannot allow myself to think that this is all lost, or why else get up in the morning? Maybe this highlights real gaps in what we鈥檙e seeing in the reporting.

鈥淏ut if we get back to the basics in terms of good, old-fashioned objective reporting鈥攂ecause we鈥檝e learned how dangerous poor reporting can be鈥攖hen I鈥檓 hopeful that one of the outcomes of this debacle is more sophisticated reporting,鈥� she says.

For now, though, Wagner鈥攚ho notes that she is a life-long Republican鈥攕ays that journalists need to 鈥渓ook at these issues with a scalpel, rather than a blunt instrument that just exacerbates the problems.鈥�

And both Wagner and Cannon said that despite the challenges coming from the White House and despite the debates about bias raging in partisan media outlets, journalists need to continue to hold to account elected and appointed leaders of our country, our states and our local governments.