After a week and a half of reading British papers, something has been bugging about reading American papers again. This morning, it hit me when I read this sentence in a New York Times story about the jury instructions in the Enron case, allowing jurors to find Lay and Skilling guilty of “deliberate ignorance.” There followed a discussion about Skilling not employing the ostrich defense and then The Times felt compelled to add this:
By allowing the so-called ostrich instruction, referring to that bird’s burying of its head in the sand….
They treat us like idiots, that’s what bugs me. That is the perch American journalism has built for itself and they have no idea how much it irritates the public to be treated as if we don’t know a damned thing and thus we need them to explain everything to us. The formerly broadsheet British papers, on the other hand, treat their readers as if they were smart, or else they wouldn’t be reading them. It’s about respect.
From my essay, “Trusting the Audience and the Readers” in November of last year:
…in media, the current debate about the mainstream media versus the blogosphere is rooted here too. After all, the argument goes, the self-centered and chaotic masses cannot be trusted to get things right on their own.
This was an essential theme of Walter Lippmann’s in the early 20th century. He’s the father of professional — read: objective — journalism, but his real passion was social engineering. A member of America’s ruling class, Lippmann was so obsessed with the need for an elite (professional) class to run things that he routinely slandered the masses.
In his 1955 essay “Walter Lippmann and Democracy,” Herbert Aptheker refers to Lippmann as an “offended and frightened snob” to say such things as these:
Remember, this is the man who fathered professional journalism. Is there any wonder the public is sick to death of it? The real threat to contemporary journalism from the blogosphere isn’t amateur versus professional, ethics, reliability or any of that; it’s the terrifying empowerment of the ignorant masses that is shaking our culture to the core.
Shalom Jeff,
I don’t think it’s that they think we’re idiots.
I think it’s that writers realize that there is little that you can assume your readers know when it comes to references such as this.
I’m constantly explaining myself to my high school students. And they have a different set of references that I don’t get. We’re not idiots, we’re just linked to different references.
B’shalom,
Jeff Hess
An ostrich is a bird that is known for burying its head in the ground? Guh!
My next question, which I hope the NYT can answer, is simple – What the hell is a “bird?”
They’re a bunch of jackasses. (refering to the animal that is a synonym [A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.] for donkey.)
And who says blog comments aren’t witty and entertaining?
After learning that many Americans can’t find Louisiana after a major hurricane struck and watching Kellie Pickler reinforce every blond stereotype, I’m stuck siding with the New York Times. Maybe the Brits are just better educated than us Yanks.
Granted, American Idol contestants aren’t the type one would expect to see reading The Times, but I’ve noticed that many immigrants don’t get all of our metaphors and idioms, either. Often those immigrants are highly educated folks who just haven’t caught up on the specific ways we’ve mangled the English language.
Something always bugs me about British news papers, which I have to read a lot because of I am there frequently. Almost all of them are sensational, even the Times, and their obsession with celebrities and public figures is totally annoying. At least in the US, I can get away from this by reading a real newspaper (instead of tabloids or USA Today). But in Britain, it doesn’t matter what you read, it is always there. With the exception of the FT and the Economist, which are really global pubs. Just my 2 cents (or pence).
For better or worse, it’s mass media and an editor probably inserted that arguing that some readers may not be clear on the allusion. And you just know that if they didn’t put it in, someone would shout about how it’s an elitist rag for assuming that everyone gets the reference. Part of the problem with mass media, you can’t win with these kinds of things.
I think the biggest thing to take note of in this instance, is that ostriches DON”T BURY THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND, it’s a myth!
But as is so often the case, the “paper of record” simply passes along myths as fact.
p.s. and again, also as usual, the Times could have found out this was a myth in 10 seconds with the use of Google.
Perhaps, Jeff, you came to reading British papers later in life. British broadsheets have always been analytical tools, less for reporting–that role is taken by the BBC (notably a public corporation)–and more for opinion. This is one reason they have always been thinner: none of that blathering reportage. If you live in London, you get the broadsheets in the am, tabs on the way home, and fill in with radio and tv. One reason this makes sense is becz of the concentration of brit media. Everyone knows everything in seconds (sans email, fancy that). So the newspapers really are to shape opinion.
The problem w/ US papers is that they are all so caught up in reporting the so-called objective news. This makes them bloated with longer stories, (increasingly) fact-checking staff (certainly the case at US magazines), and huge staffs. I have no doubt that the engagement of social media by UK papers will only be faster than that of US peers because of these underlying structural differences.
right of center is right on this one.
Not only does the news media treat every day as day one of first grade for everyone, they also re enforce untrue urban legends.
TV is worse. The average program has a vocabulary of 2-3000 different words. Listen carefully and see how many $5 words you hear being used…
This is the funniest thread in the history of Buzzmachine.
I wonder how many erudite Brits knew this was fallacious.
Bob Feinman says..
“TV is worse. The average program has a vocabulary of 2-3000 different words. Listen carefully and see how many $5 words you hear being used…”
I agree. This is why I and my children must watch PBS instead of the major networks. Even if its a travel or cooking show, its still delivered with and understanding that the viewer has likely attended college, or at least graduated high school. The major commercial networks have decided ( and fox is the worst of these IMHO ) that the average viewer would rather watch mind-numbing reality TV than engage in a good drama, comedy, or ( gasp ) tradgedy, something which PBS has in abundance. In addition, PBS has been multicasting their digital TV signal for months now, something that the major networks refuse to do, except to put up a weather graphic. How un-original.
If I’m not on the computer during prime time, I usually read a book.
Toblerone2,
You live like an ostrich.
The British publishers probably assume (rightly) that even if they don’t understand the ostrich analogy, the reader has the intelligence to find a reference. That’s the real insult; the Times thinking it’s the reader’s sole reference.
For many Times’ readers, it is the sole reference.
Back to the TV comment, I notice how such witness leading has found its way into television and movie writing as well. It’s bad enough when newspapers do it (where you have come up with your own imagery). But, to show Bob stealing a car, and then to have another character in the show or movie say “look Bob is stealing a car”……is just as bad if not worse. Here the, writers have the benefit of imagery with no clue how to use it.
You have to take into account the literacy of American newspaper readers. On average, they have have a 3rd grade reading ability. Hate to say it, but it’s true…
The New York Times is all too often a dull, worthy, pretentious and tiresome bore whose overarching sense of self importance is tedious. Where else in the world does a story about a man buying a new dining table on Craigslist make the front page, as it did a few Saturdays ago? A story which detailed in minutae how the man bought the table, who he got it from and, finally, after 700-odd words, revealing the point of the story at the end: that the guy selling the table turned out to be the victim of a recent murder. Unfortunately it seemed that the only person aware of the murder’s significance was the writer – nowhere did the Times qualify this drivel with a strong reference to what actually happened and why it expected the reader to be interested in a front page story about a man buying a table on Craigslist from someone who is now, sadly, dead. Even had I known about the murder, it’s a story that wouldn’t stand up anywhere else in the world and The Times’ arrogance in running it was typical. Think I might pitch them a yarn about a new spanner set I saw on eBay.
Heh, And I can’t type anymore…
Toblerone2 — not to knock on you or anything PBS does, but the networks put so much reality garbage on the air is because people are watching it… and it’s cheap. A powerful one-two punch. Quality costs money and doesn’t deliver the demos, although for every average there’s going to be a standard deviation. I’d name you a few, but I find I don’t watch much prime-time television either (grin).
As for the Times comment, I don’t see it as condescending — merely explanatory, even the analogy is flawed. Say “Ostrich defense” and I might assume “head buried in the sand” is what you mean. But reporting should answer questions rather than leave you guessing. I am a college graduate and this is the first time I have heard that term used. I wasn’t offended when I heard it, and I don’t fault the Times for spending a few words on it.
Ted Koppel once said that he was speaking to an imaginary thirteen year old. That’s how he achieved his remarkable clarity.
I am a foreign born American and I was always very impressed with this typically American capability of using the language in a purely instrumental way – to just deliver the intended message… without any extra referentiality.
I guess that because of the cultural diversity in America and the overall globalization, the English language will become even more instrumentilized and therefore simplified… forget paradigmatic referentiality, double meanings, idioms, etc.
Oh, yeah, right, the redtops treat their readers with respect. See http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/04/19/showbuzz
what planet’s UK are you talking about, Jeff?
You should dip this comment thread in bronze– it’s a keeper!
Even the Economist and FT have mind numbing sections. Whenever a firm is mentioned, they will insert a parenthetical as to what the firm does. Thanks to consultancies, accounting firms, and investment banks producing mass quantities of research as a marketing tool, there may be several stories referencing McKinsey, Deloitte, Bain, PwC, Goldman Sachs… These words likely help somewhere between 2 and 5 readers per issue, and annoy thousands.
If you’re reading the FT or the Economist, you know the Big Four, the major consultancies… If you don’t, you can look it up. I would love to have specialist papers writing at something resembling a masters level reading comprehension. Since so many of use only read blogs, newspapers, business books, and presentations, a high bar for readability would be appreciated simply to maintain our own skills. You shouldn’t be aiming for a mass market, but for an elite readership.
[...] Jeff Jarvis undergoes media culture shock upon returning from London: [...]
Jeff,
What Jeff Hess says above is right.
When you are dealing with a broad audience, you really want to make sure to explain to your readers just what you’re talking about, especially with an obscure reference.
I teach college composition, and I’ll tell you, they DO have a different set of cultural references — and they DON’T go scrambling for a dictionary when they come across something they don’t know (well, after my class, I hope they do).
Actually, I tell my students to assume, when writing their essays, that their reader doesn’t know jack.
That way their message will be crystal clear to the widest possible audience.
The Times’ audience is enormous. I don’t blame their reporters for following this rule.
I think it’s good reporting practice.
RBS
Anyone who’s ever seen a cartoon knows about the Ostrich-sand thing. Jeebus.
I also question this whole “third grade reading level” thing. How’d they figure that out? Did they give a reading comp test to their readers?
[...] Jeff Jarvis is right: The MSM does treat us like idiots. [...]
This is what I call a totally meaningless rant. In fact, its pretty ridiculous — shows that blogs can be as petty and mindless as anyone else.
If I were to read a paper and come across a reference to the ostrich defense in a court what would I think of ? I consider myself pretty well informed, but I might think first of the way in which the ostrich defends itself, which is by kicking. The issue is not whether we know about the common legend of the ostrich burying its head in the sand, the question is what we would think of first when we hear the term. Furthermore, given the negative connotations of the ostrich-sand thing, I wouldnt’ even think that a defense lawyer would assert it (since the ostrich is not blameless, which is presumably what the defense lawyer is trying to establish for the defendant).
As far as people being able to look up references — err most people don’t read the paper online. Many read it on the bus, when eating, in the bathroom etc. Not easy to look up references there.
The NYT has ALWAYS done this. I’ve noticed it for years. It’s not only insulting, it’s boring and ponderous. For instance, they’ll do something like this;
The Kentucky Derby, the first of the Triple Crown races, (virtually everyone who is interested in this article already knows this. Get on with it for God’s sake.)
Actually, I tell my students to assume, when writing their essays, that their reader doesn’t know jack.
How nice. Do you assign them to read the crappiest literature too?
Sweetie, you are all that is wrong with higher, dumbed down, education.
I find that there is a palpable difference between the American media and the British media. I think that you are right in noticing a difference between the two. I also believe that the American media represents and to some degree shapes public perceptions. In so far as this is true why are we surprised. The blunt truth of the matter is that most people really dont know much about anything but rather like their egos to be massaged. Here lies the reasons for the difference between the “broad sheet” media in the U.S. and Britain. Namely that one panders to the ego of its readers and the other that accepts the truth that most of them do not have clue about anything.