The Responsibility to Gossip

Why Serious Journalism Participates in Gossip

By William E. Shaub, Contributing Writer

It’s a good thing Americans “love” gossip—be it Hollywood or political—because they get a lot of it. In fact, Americans often pay for the privilege of finding gossip in the headlines of their most trusted newspapers, magazines, and cable news programs. Unknowingly, perhaps; or knowingly, with the understanding that their media options are remarkably limited.

Tabloid journalism itself garners the mass media over $3 billion a year, sponsoring what critics like Cornel West call an inhumane “culture industry” that relies on trivial reporting to present journalism on a personal level. It’s superficial, yet it feels curiously substantive because we can relate to it. Gossip might be purchased for this reason, but it’s sold for many others.

We all say that gossip is simply wrong, and nobody cares what Bill Clinton or Herman Cain do in their personal lives. It’s not our business. What many of us don’t understand, however, is that a mainstream industry of businesses exist that are dedicated to doing little else than making it our business. And this conglomeration of gossip operations within the media have a place in political discourse that they’ve carved out for themselves for over a century. Their role in American society is surprisingly significant in maintaining the systemic barriers that prevent real democracy from flourishing in the country.

Structural Pressure

If you were to ask a political tabloid like The Drudge Report or The Huffington Post why it routinely publishes information on the personal lives and values of presidential candidates, for example, their response would likely rest upon two main points. The first is that there is a market demand for such reporting, and that the increased page views on such material result in additional advertisement revenue, thus keeping their respective media operations in business.

[pullquote]There is indeed a market demand for gossip, and thus pressure on businesses to put forward a product to satisfy it[/pullquote]Media institutions across the board, from minor tabloid-news hybrids like the Daily Caller to agenda-setting powerhouses like the New York Times all feature gossip in their headlines from time to time. Do they really need gossip articles alongside “the issues” and policy wonk columnists in order to sell ads?

This is undoubtedly true. It’s also precisely why publications like The National Enquirer and The Sun line the registers of virtually every supermarket and gas station in the country. There is indeed a market demand for gossip, and thus pressure on businesses to put forward a product to satisfy it. But suppose we took this line of questioning a step further, probing why news organizations that host political journalists should feel the need to stay in business by producing gossip alongside real issues, with the former often written by the journalists themselves? Is such a method to “stay competitive” within the confines of the market consistent with democracy in civic life: a well-informed electorate as a result of a news media concerned with holding institutions accountable for the purpose of keeping democracy functioning?

The answer appears to make markets look quite inefficient, because the result of the described market pressure is less democracy. One effect of this is simply distracting the American public from real issues that affect it directly—from Medicare cuts to increased “defense” spending—and to put the focus on Newt Gingrich’s affairs or, to revisit the late 1990′s, Clinton’s impeachment trial (an issue-free media blitz). One might note Gallup’s reporting that Clinton’s approval rating barely dropped during the hearings, despite the media attention on “values,” supporting the unsurprising notion that the electorate was mostly concerned about the economy (something real).

Another effect of what the Harvard Law Review calls America’s resulting “democracy deficit” is the projection of political imagery to subvert meaningful democratic elections, thus diverting the public eye away from the private interests which dominate them. The candidates, all of whom are structurally beholden to moneyed domestic power, must have certain qualities and values that disguise such unelectable premises. Their backgrounds must be based on “values:” Rick Santorum’s stated policy positions—such as cutting the corporate tax rate by over half while dramatically increasing funding for the Pentagon system—aren’t enough for the mass media to portray him as unelectable, despite how grossly unpopular his positions are with the public. On the other hand, his wife’s former boyfriend was 40 years her senior and that may just make Santorum unelectable.
//
//
On the surface, this sounds outlandishly contemptuous of democracy—turning the elections into a spectator sport in which the public pushes a button for the candidate with the best hair. Crucial issues and public concerns then take a backseat to the superficial reporting on the candidates; after all, gossip is far more adept at constructing an image than issues like looming trade deals and proliferation agreements, especially since the issues being discussed by the candidates and the media are almost never public interest issues like those mentioned.

For example, CNN pundit and presidential debate host John King ran into controversy recently for asking presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich if allegations were true that he asked his second wife for an open marriage. The journalists who clearly think they’re committed to challenging power and authority all rallied to King’s defense, explaining that it was his journalistic duty. “Our job isn’t to be popular,” said Fox News’ Chris Wallace. After all, Gingrich’s family-friendly image was on the line, and that’s what is most important.

Institutional Analysis

Structural indecency is a phenomenon that can be described as carrying out the function of a media filter, which correctly sounds like a scary concept. A major component of this is basic institutional pressure that comes from a variety of power centers, both private and public, which force the media to reflect their organizational interests and concerns. How do they manage to accomplish such a task without a “conspiracy?”

The endgame of this theory further illustrates what institutional pressure looks like. Take, for example, the case of former New York Times editor Bill Keller and his relationship with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. Shortly after the Times’ publication and analysis of Collateral Murder, which depicted the killing of two Reuters journalists and numerous civilians by American Special Forces in Baghdad, Keller editorialized an 18 page article attacking Assange both personally and politically.

After dealing with Assange for several months in a partnership, which has been documented by Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding, Keller had a change of heart after publishing a portion of WikiLeaks’ Iraq War Logs. No longer did he “regard Assange as a partner,” explaining that the problem with his organization is that it’s “suffused with such glib antipathy toward the United States,” presumably for releasing evidence of U.S.-committed atrocities (war crimes, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald) in Iraq. A substantial amount of the lengthy piece consisted of direct ad-hominem attacks on Assange himself, demonstrating a level of superficiality that could easily be described as gossip.

Assange now argues that “the Times ran in the face of fire… It abandoned us once the heat started from the U.S. administration.” But why would the editor of the world’s most powerful and independent press operation care about what the U.S. government thinks? After all, the Times is about fearless journalism and challenging power.

The answer is clear, and accurately described by Phil Donahue in 1992: “you have to go along, to get along.” Keller had his hands full with Collateral Murder—which the Pentagon was not interested in seeing published—and also with his relationship with Julian Assange, whom Joe Biden described as a “cyber-terrorist.” Perhaps the next time the Times wanted to report inside the State Department, its friendly contacts would no longer be there. NYT reporters would lose their standing in the eyes of a badly embarrassed government, which can defend itself by marginalizing the Times’ leverage.

[pullquote]Just because the aforementioned (and very limited) list of elite classes happens to have written most social studies textbooks doesn’t necessarily mean that this view of American society is correct.[/pullquote]Perhaps this is why Bill Keller “would hesitate to describe what WikiLeaks does as journalism.” Agenda-setting journalism like the New York Times is more or less limited by its institutional structure to reflect certain elite interests. These limitations are precisely what make it mainstream. In addition, one might note that a crucial distinction can be found in the above example of Bill Keller, as his tabloid-style article on Assange was not the result of market pressure. Keller didn’t write about Assange’s “filthy white socks” and “shock of white hair” because it would sell newspaper ads. Rather, it was to save the hypothetical skin, or better yet, “journalistic reputation” of his business in the eyes of a crucial partner.

Redefining Democratic Elections

Going back to our original question, what would Matt Drudge or another major political tabloid editor say if we were to ask, “why gossip and focus on trivial matters within the context of political journalism?” Alongside the institutional factors in place which require the additional revenue, the second major point rests in the notion that the public wants, and most importantly, needs to know such information regarding family values, religious background, and even physical stature of candidates and elected officials, regardless of the superficiality of content.

Contextualizing this argument from the mass media’s point of view isn’t difficult: from its origins, the U.S. has been religiously fundamentalist, perceiving itself to be “puritan,” “exemplary” in its commitment to freedom, and “exceptional” internationally without needing to provide evidence. Of course the people of such a nation are concerned with the values, fitness, and haircut of the man it picks to represent them in front of the U.N. A closer look at this point reveals an interesting result, however: there’s little evidence to support it.

In fact, the bulk of evidence from both the historical and documentary records suggests that it’s been the U.S. elite, or more aptly put, the political class, politicians, white male property owners, business managers, and what James Madison would have called “the wealth of the nation” who have been responsible for constructing this misconception of who comprises the American public.
//
//
Just because the aforementioned (and very limited) list of elite classes happens to have written most social studies textbooks doesn’t necessarily mean that this view of American society is correct. Rather, this view is what totalitarians and propagandists have always had to construct, by associating their miserable records of injustice and hypocrisy with the mass majority of their fellow citizens, and then nonchalantly apologizing for it on the country’s behalf.

The media therefore presents gossip not in spite of American democracy, but to enhance and preserve a certain conception of it: one that involves spectators, not participants; public ratification, not public decision making. It is antithetical to a participatory economy and the idea of self-governance, and displays a striking commitment to reactionary ideology, despite illusions of an independent press. The issue at hand is and will always be whether or not the media is free, but will remain unresolved as long as the media is responsible for the gossip that debases meaningful democracy.

William E. Shaub is a violin performance major at the Juilliard School of Music in Manhattan and the editor of TheFBM.com.

ARB Team
Arbitrage Magazine
Business News with BITE.