The events in Ferguson were, and are to this day, ?controversial in more ways than one.
There is no denying that. For myself, it is difficult to think of times in the past when I have witnessed more racial tension and a stronger civil rights energy.
In situations like these, the news media descends in droves.
They put reporters on the street, they get “professional” and “expert” opinions and they commentate.
Regardless of the network you prefer to watch, they all make lofty claims of impartiality and black and white, nothing but the facts, ?reporting.
But do they carry out these claims?
Certainly Ferguson ?erupted, but did the media contribute?
Interestingly enough, a few days after the key events, the media were asking the same question.
Within the realm of ?journalism, it is my personal conviction that we must be wary of idealism.
It is impossible to entirely detach the writer from the words, the reporter from the piece or the broadcaster from the story.
Some would argue that this is biased and they have the right to do so.
However, I would argue this is simply another aspect of our humanity.
I am not saying I think reporting should be tainted by the view of the reporter — far from it.
I want every journalist, especially reporters, to strive to make no conscious or ?deliberate actions to alter the events to fit their view.
But that doesn’t mean the story they report isn’t affected by who they are, what they ?believe or how they think.
At some level, bias can be removed no further.
So how does this relate to Ferguson and its coverage?
The coverage was ?impartial, but not helpful.
Of course, there were reporters who had a ?specific agenda or even ?subconsciously had a particular view that affected how they reported the events.
For the most part, ?however, I honestly found the reporting to be fair. When the key events were happening, I was flipping through the main news ?networks and several online outlets to broaden my view.
They all had roughly the same story with roughly the same experts and the same take in the end.
I would surmise that the ?coverage was fair in every key category.
So, if this is true, why did I say they weren’t helpful?
The media have immense power to focus the thoughts of the nation and indeed they did during Ferguson.
But was it too much?
Did they add to the ?tension through their unceasing coverage of the events? I believe so.
Though they clamored for calm the way they continued to hammer out every fact and every perspective, they only fueled the sometimes-violent energy that descended into Ferguson.
It would be foolish to hold the news networks, the ?reporters or the journalists ?responsible for the events that happened in Ferguson either ?before or after the verdict was released.
But there is no doubt in my mind that they have ?extreme power in how the ?national psyche processes controversial events — and they need to be mindful of this power.
cgerst@indiana.edu
