The Media Should Ignore Lies

Following-up on some earlier thoughts on evidenced-based journalism, I'd like to link to a remarkably practical editorial by a professor at Washington and Lee.

As the saying goes, what really matters isn't what people think, it's what they think about: Debunking falsehoods is fine, but the more that news media embrace it as if it's a cure-all, the worse we'll all be. The solution isn't to refute, it's to ignore. End the practice of rewarding the most sensational, the most irresponsible, the most baseless allegations with top-of-the-news billing. The media bury worthwhile news all the time; how about burying the worthless stuff?

There, however, the problem isn't so much with reporters, it's with their bosses, the ones who insist on running the screaming footage from "town meetings,'' on giving dramatic lies a prominence they don't deserve -- ensuring an audience, but while ensuring the lies a public life no reasoned refutation can end.

"He said, she said'' has always been a dubious way to report the world. "We say'' helps, but only a little. The real solution is simple: It's called news judgment. - Edward Wasserman

I submit that the solution to the decline of ratings and newspaper circulation is not more sensationalism, but less. If traditional media is to decline, may it decline gracefully, not into tawdry, tabloidism.

(with a tip-o-the-hat to Hullabaloo.)