Negativity bias or journalists holding the powerful accountable? In my book, that’s what good journalists do - no matter who is in power. And NYT vs. Sullivan in 1964 protects the right of ALL Americans, not just the media, to criticize public figures.
Not to argue, but negativity bias is not a commentary on any particular journalist. Negativity bias is the psychological phenomenon where humans give more weight to negative experiences, information, or feedback than to positive or neutral input. This means that negative events, emotions, or thoughts have a more powerful and lasting impact on a person's psychological state and behavior. Journalism, writ large, monetizes negativity bias. Negativity bias is the essence of journalism’s business model.
As for NYT v. Sullivan, you are just wrong. Sullivan does not protect the right of all Americans to criticize public figures, the First Amendment does that (as for “public figures”, they got added to Sullivan’s “actual malice” standard in Curtis Publishing v. Butts and Associated Press v Walker). People could criticize government in America from the get go. Government criticism was not something Sullivan invented.
Sullivan allows media to lie. It really is that simple.
Which is unfortunate, because a reliable, functioning press is necessary for democracy.
As for holding the “powerful” to account, whether Sullivan does that has been questioned by both conservatives and liberals.
Justice Gorsuch wrote: “it’s unclear how well these modern developments serve Sullivan’s original purposes. Not only has the doctrine evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods on a scale no one could have foreseen, it has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted. … Rules intended to ensure a robust debate over actions taken by high public officials carrying out the public’s business increasingly seem to leave even ordinary Americans without recourse for grievous defamation.” (Berisha v. Lawson 594 U.S., Gorsusch dissent, pg.7, 2021).
Justice Kagan, while a professor at University of Chicago, noted, “Part of what seems troubling about applying the actual malice rule to these cases arises not so much from the content of the speech … as from the respective societal positions of the speaker and the target. In such cases, the law insulates powerful institutional actors - possessing both a great capacity to harm individuals and a far-reaching influence over society at large - from charges of irresponsibility made by persons with little societal influence and few avenues of selfprotection. If part of the point of Sullivan was to check the abuse of power and to ensure the accountability of those wielding it, then these cases suggest that the Court's constitutionalization of libel law has gone askew”.
If you don’t want to talk about how media’s ability to lie is the elephant in the room, that’s fine.
We’re not going to agree on Sullivan. Public officials by definition aren’t suffering from “little societal influence.” They have plenty of influence due to their positions.
Sullivan does not allow journalists to lie. If the story is false and the plaintiff can prove that not only is it false but the journalist knew so and proceeded anyway, the plaintiff will prevail.
What Sullivan does is protect robust speech about public figures and the actions they take. It provides a safety valve so that a public figure cannot drain defendant resources by dragging them through court. A judge can dismiss a case early in the process if Sullivan’s thresholds aren’t met.
I appreciate your perspective. You make me examine my beliefs. I doubt either of us will change our minds about the value of Sullivan.
I started noticing the "no one cares" syndrome earlier. The "KMA" attitude has been growing since the Vietnam Era. Keep your heads down. History is repeating itself.
I give Margaret Brennan credit on Face the Nation for trying to challenge the bullshit that comes out of MAGA mouths. What an infuriating job! And what a weak network!
She will have her work cut out for her now, trying to fact-check in real time. It sure sets her up for unavoidable confrontation with the interview subject who knows they can run out the clock by making it look like Brennan is being rude. I know these network stars make a lot of money, but sometimes you just have to walk away.
When our news networks can no longer be trusted to ferret out and stand for truth and factual reporting, we have made a deep dive toward authoritarian rule. Thank you, Dave, for your courage in continuing to call this out.
Big money talks. Pretty much the size of it all. Journalism 101 in legacy media is dead but for Journalism Schools. Even then it’s suspect. Correct me if wrong but I recall a flap years ago about how the Koch bros money was invested in the ISU Journalism Dept. to help produce young journalists.
Big money figures into this because Paramount needed to pay Trump and agree to hiring an ombudsman with the right outlook in order to win FCC approval for the merger with Skydance.
I agree, Kathy, but these folks are in a far different stratosphere than you and me. Private jets, yachts, beach houses. They care more about the money than in journalistic principles.
Mr. Main’s comment misinterprets the article's core argument. The article isn't about the media's use of negativity bias or the legal nuances of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Instead, Dave focuses on two specific decisions by CBS News—the settlement with Donald Trump and the appointment of a politically biased ombudsman—as examples of a decline in journalistic standards by CBS.
On the side note, I find social media algorithms create and exacerbate any negativity bias, creating a feedback loop. I would ask that academic and research institutions investigate this power of social media algorithms. I still hope that Congress would act on the adverse impacts of social media, especially on youth and general society.
Heartbreaking CBS has been a pillar of journalism excellence for as long as I can remember and that's a long time. That they have now been reduced to a mouthpeice for an administration bent on tearing down this great country and most certainly journalistic integrity with it is just unconscionable.
Is it possible the move not to edit could bring truth to light? Could it expose those who are not secure in the knowledge of their roles in government? This could backfire on the amateurs masquerading in adult jobs in government. Long, uncut interviews can't make them look better. I have memories of Tim Russert taking down the conflicted and unprepared.
Well, Russert was unusually skilled at it. Few can match him. Doing live fact checking is difficult. I fear this only encourages interview subjects to lie at will, knowing the misinformation gets through no matter how diligent the interviewer is at pushing back.
An industry built on monetizing negativity bias, empowered to lie since 1964, has ethical compass problems?
You may have buried the lede.
Negativity bias or journalists holding the powerful accountable? In my book, that’s what good journalists do - no matter who is in power. And NYT vs. Sullivan in 1964 protects the right of ALL Americans, not just the media, to criticize public figures.
Not to argue, but negativity bias is not a commentary on any particular journalist. Negativity bias is the psychological phenomenon where humans give more weight to negative experiences, information, or feedback than to positive or neutral input. This means that negative events, emotions, or thoughts have a more powerful and lasting impact on a person's psychological state and behavior. Journalism, writ large, monetizes negativity bias. Negativity bias is the essence of journalism’s business model.
As for NYT v. Sullivan, you are just wrong. Sullivan does not protect the right of all Americans to criticize public figures, the First Amendment does that (as for “public figures”, they got added to Sullivan’s “actual malice” standard in Curtis Publishing v. Butts and Associated Press v Walker). People could criticize government in America from the get go. Government criticism was not something Sullivan invented.
Sullivan allows media to lie. It really is that simple.
Which is unfortunate, because a reliable, functioning press is necessary for democracy.
As for holding the “powerful” to account, whether Sullivan does that has been questioned by both conservatives and liberals.
Justice Gorsuch wrote: “it’s unclear how well these modern developments serve Sullivan’s original purposes. Not only has the doctrine evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods on a scale no one could have foreseen, it has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted. … Rules intended to ensure a robust debate over actions taken by high public officials carrying out the public’s business increasingly seem to leave even ordinary Americans without recourse for grievous defamation.” (Berisha v. Lawson 594 U.S., Gorsusch dissent, pg.7, 2021).
Justice Kagan, while a professor at University of Chicago, noted, “Part of what seems troubling about applying the actual malice rule to these cases arises not so much from the content of the speech … as from the respective societal positions of the speaker and the target. In such cases, the law insulates powerful institutional actors - possessing both a great capacity to harm individuals and a far-reaching influence over society at large - from charges of irresponsibility made by persons with little societal influence and few avenues of selfprotection. If part of the point of Sullivan was to check the abuse of power and to ensure the accountability of those wielding it, then these cases suggest that the Court's constitutionalization of libel law has gone askew”.
If you don’t want to talk about how media’s ability to lie is the elephant in the room, that’s fine.
But the elephant REALLY likes the room.
You’d be a lot of fun on a weekend fishing trip.
fishing? just trying to scale back the nonsense here
(I'll show myself out)
We’re not going to agree on Sullivan. Public officials by definition aren’t suffering from “little societal influence.” They have plenty of influence due to their positions.
Sullivan does not allow journalists to lie. If the story is false and the plaintiff can prove that not only is it false but the journalist knew so and proceeded anyway, the plaintiff will prevail.
What Sullivan does is protect robust speech about public figures and the actions they take. It provides a safety valve so that a public figure cannot drain defendant resources by dragging them through court. A judge can dismiss a case early in the process if Sullivan’s thresholds aren’t met.
I appreciate your perspective. You make me examine my beliefs. I doubt either of us will change our minds about the value of Sullivan.
We agree corporate behavior can run counter to the purpose of journalism.
If you'd like to do something impactful on this front, feel free to call (563 529-1542).
I would have picked two different words
Run and hide? Kneel and pray? Something beginning with an F?
No fact checking? Not really “news” anymore is it?
No, not anything we can fully trust.
As usual, I agree with the author.
I started noticing the "no one cares" syndrome earlier. The "KMA" attitude has been growing since the Vietnam Era. Keep your heads down. History is repeating itself.
I give Margaret Brennan credit on Face the Nation for trying to challenge the bullshit that comes out of MAGA mouths. What an infuriating job! And what a weak network!
She will have her work cut out for her now, trying to fact-check in real time. It sure sets her up for unavoidable confrontation with the interview subject who knows they can run out the clock by making it look like Brennan is being rude. I know these network stars make a lot of money, but sometimes you just have to walk away.
One can see the frustration Margaret Brennan has every time Lil Marco is a guest. I would quit having him back!
When our news networks can no longer be trusted to ferret out and stand for truth and factual reporting, we have made a deep dive toward authoritarian rule. Thank you, Dave, for your courage in continuing to call this out.
Big money talks. Pretty much the size of it all. Journalism 101 in legacy media is dead but for Journalism Schools. Even then it’s suspect. Correct me if wrong but I recall a flap years ago about how the Koch bros money was invested in the ISU Journalism Dept. to help produce young journalists.
Big money figures into this because Paramount needed to pay Trump and agree to hiring an ombudsman with the right outlook in order to win FCC approval for the merger with Skydance.
F the merger; if it takes away journalistic integrity; the price is too high.
I agree, Kathy, but these folks are in a far different stratosphere than you and me. Private jets, yachts, beach houses. They care more about the money than in journalistic principles.
Long ago I removed CBS from my list of valid news sources.
A wise move, I’m sad to say.
Makes me ill.
So sadly true!! The capitulation is disgusting and not worthy of ‘professional’ journalism!
Mr. Main’s comment misinterprets the article's core argument. The article isn't about the media's use of negativity bias or the legal nuances of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Instead, Dave focuses on two specific decisions by CBS News—the settlement with Donald Trump and the appointment of a politically biased ombudsman—as examples of a decline in journalistic standards by CBS.
On the side note, I find social media algorithms create and exacerbate any negativity bias, creating a feedback loop. I would ask that academic and research institutions investigate this power of social media algorithms. I still hope that Congress would act on the adverse impacts of social media, especially on youth and general society.
Right, Ralph. But his original comment mentioned 1964, and I knew what he is referring to. So that took me down the Sullivan path.
3rd time’s a charm!
Got it. But what’s the second word? That? Them? It? CBS? I guess they all work.
I quit watching CBS news. I feel they are now "owned" by the Trumpublicans.
Hard to believe that hasn’t occurred to them.
Heartbreaking CBS has been a pillar of journalism excellence for as long as I can remember and that's a long time. That they have now been reduced to a mouthpeice for an administration bent on tearing down this great country and most certainly journalistic integrity with it is just unconscionable.
Well said, Kathy. I can see Walter Cronkite with a tear in his eye, shaking his head . . .
Is it possible the move not to edit could bring truth to light? Could it expose those who are not secure in the knowledge of their roles in government? This could backfire on the amateurs masquerading in adult jobs in government. Long, uncut interviews can't make them look better. I have memories of Tim Russert taking down the conflicted and unprepared.
Well, Russert was unusually skilled at it. Few can match him. Doing live fact checking is difficult. I fear this only encourages interview subjects to lie at will, knowing the misinformation gets through no matter how diligent the interviewer is at pushing back.