Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Unraveling Truth

.
Making Sense of Truthiness

All: Like all of you, Kai Garcia has been thinking about a focus for her truthiness project. She sent me this email: “I really want to explore the topic of same-sex marriage. I feel there is a lot of opinion on the subject and want to really look into the truth and truthiness of the issue. I feel as if media and the general public have a lot to say about gay marriage and I’m interested in finding out the real reliable facts rather than just the biased comments and opinion feeding into the media flow.”

Good questions.

Dr. Ted responds:

Same-sex marriage certainly qualifies as the kind of topic that the mass media help become so incendiary in public conversation, and where opinion tends to get in the way of rational discussion—which is one definition of the truth vs. “truthiness” debate.

Everyone in pursuit of this truthiness project needs to remember that although opinion (on anything) is an important protected right in a free society (we vote as a matter of our own “conscience” and personal opinion, right?), much of that conversation gets heated up by partisans (believers in one direction or another), by mass media pundits and their need to keep audience attention by yelling and escalating emotions.

The same-sex issue is extremely volatile, and it often gives off more heat than light. And it continues as a current hot issue. On National Public Radio right now as I type this, as a matter of fact, is a story about the First Amendment rights of anti-gay protesters who picketed the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq/Afghanistan with signs like this: “You’re a Fag” and “You’re Going to Hell...” to protest the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy. (Excuse me? At a funeral!? That’s free speech, of course, but makes me want to punch somebody...) That case is going to the Supreme Court. (See this URL).

In Utah, same-sex marriage is a current local issue because of LDS Church policy—as discussed again over the weekend by Boyd K. Packer at General Conference. And it’s current at USU because the JCOM department will bring JCOM alumnus Reed Cowan, a TV news anchor in Miami and director/producer of a controversial movie called 8: The Mormon Proposition, to campus on Oct. 21 (be there if you can!). The movie examines being gay in Utah, same-sex marriage issues, and the Prop 8 campaign that revoked same-sex marriage in California in 2008. That’s going to the Supreme Court, too. For USU, this is an opportunity to talk about these issues.

But I digress. The point is that same-sex marriage and gay issues are extremely incendiary everywhere, and so in looking at this topic from a media smarts perspective, it’s important to remember that the emotions accompanying the debate can skew the conversation. That is part of the truthiness project—what is “real,” and how do we define that in the mass media? You will have to spend a little time understanding what the issues are for yourself (is homosexuality “immoral”? If so, so what? why? Do gay people threaten the rest of society? How? What is the overriding issue in this conversation? and what is the mass media’s role in the societal discussion?)

We need to remember what the mass media can do in society, and what the media’s responsibility is. The Hutchins Commission (see your readings) offers a model for “social responsibility” (but how do we decide what that means?). Ethics codes from groups like the Society of Professional Journalists offer some yardsticks to measure media ethics. The first is to “minimize harm,” which is a lot like the Hippocratic Oath for doctors: “First, do no harm.” So how do the media accomplish that while reporting on topics like race or same-sex issues or women’s rights, all of which can become highly charged for the individuals involved? As communicators, do we report the emotion and ramp up the rhetoric for society, or can we find ways to make sense of these issues so that our neighbors can make informed decisions?

So, yes, Kai (and the rest of you). This is a great news topic to examine. But it’s also complicated by, well, human beings, from our own individual selective perceptions to how the issues are framed in the mass media, and how we—individually and in the mass media—cultivate opinions and perspectives on what we think we “know” about the issues and the world.

This is why I love being a professor of interesting stuff.

Ted Pease

6 comments:

  1. I think this would be a very difficult topic to cover. There are so many people that are stuck in what they see as right, when it pertains to this issue, that even if you could fairly cover it without bias you may only attract those that are fence sitters.(of which there are very few I imagine)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that this would be a GREAT topic to write a persuasive essay on, but as for me, I know that I am way to biased from my beliefs to even attempt to find the "truth" about gay marriage. I also think this will be hard because nobody knows what the truth is on this topic because I think if falls under truthiness more than anything. It's up to you, but I would suggest doing your project on something you don't really know much about and learning about it through your research; you'll be less biased and it'll be easier to report the facts.

    --Chelsea Ebeling

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Steve. I know that this subject hits home in one way or another for lots of people out there. Some people see the issue as black and white and then there are those fence sitters. And, as Alicia Shepherd said yesterday at the lecture series, Objectivity is a nice thought, but kind of far-fetched. Perhaps it is only the fence sitters who could "objectively" report on this topic?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my opinion, with this issue the fact check would be the hardest part. The "truth" is so subjective - driven by selective perception on this issue. What would be the best source for facts? Science? Religious texts? Subjective stuff. This about people's lives, their rights, their choices. Gays want the right to marry. Religious groups don't want them to have that right. We are not going to solve this. And from what I understand, the assignment is not so much about drawing a conclusion about the issue; who is right or wrong, but rather about contrasting the way the issue is covered by Fox vs Faux News - all in the context of a truth vs. truthiness perspective. And keeping the emotion and opinion out of it. Easy? Um... not so much. For me this would take a monumental effort to distance myself from my own bias and selective opinion on the issue itself. I'll look forward to reading the essay of anyone brave enough to tackle it. I'm running the other direction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I stayed away from this hot topic because I have mixed emotions over it. I feel that in order to find if gay marriage is on the truth side or "truthiness" side you'd need more then a month to fully do some research because this issue has been around for a long time. Kai seems interested and patient enough to read many articles, blogs, or watch videos on gay marriage where as for me not so much. There are many arguments why gay marriage is immoral and many arguments why it should be accepted. But it is a very gray area.

    Romina Nedakovic

    ReplyDelete