Theories help us analyze events

Posted on July 29, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

Theories help us explain or predict outcomes as we navigate daily life. Furthermore, theories help us detect and analyze behaviors that don’t follow the patterns we expect.

I’ve been pondering the classic four theories of the press over the past few weeks (July 15, July 21). I keep seeing examples of how these theories can help me evaluate what’s going on in current events.

For example, in several Virginia localities, citizens are arguing about whether to remove books from school libraries. Debates have flared so far this year in Hanover and Spotsylvania counties.

In Texas, state Department of Agriculture leadership apologized to employees July 12 for “misinformation” and a “biased view” of employment law in a mandatory training session that day. The issue, the Texas Tribune reported July 13, was that the trainer had explained what made someone “cisgender” or “transgender” and what “deadname” meant (intentionally using the name a person was given before gender transition).

In news reports about these Virginia and Texas cases, the views attributed to “conservatives” about access to information don’t align with the views of “conservatives” in stories from New Orleans about federal efforts to reduce misinformation on social networks. Press theories provide a practical lens for interpreting the dynamics.

In Virginia and Texas, the “conservative” perspective is more aligned with Authoritarian or Communist press theory than the Libertarian or Social Responsibility thinking we saw in the Louisiana court case. In the Authoritarian and Communist theories, “truth” isn’t determined by individuals weighing all sides of an issue (the Libertarian theory dynamic) or by journalists seeking to report all available information—pro or con—about a topic (the Social Responsibility theory dynamic).

In the Authoritarian and Communist theories, “truth” isn’t self-evident. In the Authoritarian theory, “wise” leaders determine the truth. In the Communist theory, the party or state determines what is true. In both the Authoritarian and Communist theories, what is considered “truth” is central to political power and the foundation of social influence. Consequently, the specified “truth” needs to be protected from misinformation. Any challenges to the official line threaten political power.

The “conservatives” in Virginia and Texas knew “the truth” and wanted to shield people from offensive or dangerous concepts that might raise doubts about that truth.

In advocating the free flow of ideas through social media, the “conservatives” in the Louisiana court case presented a classic Libertarian press theory position: All viewpoints should have access to the marketplace of ideas. If people could hear all voices, the truth would emerge from the online debate through the self-righting process. Rational people would determine what was true and false. Misinformation, therefore, wasn’t a threat.

The Virginia controversy came in the wake of a state law that went into effect last year. The law requires schools to notify parents of any instructional material that includes sexually explicit content and allow them to request alternative materials for their children. The law’s goal is to let parents protect children from content the parents don’t want the youngsters to see.

Agriculture Department leaders in Texas said they were apologizing to state workers because “misinformation” about gender in the mandatory training session might have offended some employees who considered the ideas contrary to their religious beliefs.

The trainer—Natalie Rougeux, a board-certified attorney in labor and employment law and a certified human-resources professional—told the Texas Tribune that she “simply gave the proper terminology for ‘transgender’ and ‘cisgender’ and explained the concept of ‘deadnaming.’” Those definitions were among many topics covered during the hourlong session on equal employment opportunity regulations.

Critics of the messages in books or employment training appear to have rejected the Libertarian idea that people are rational and can individually distinguish truth from falsehood. Critics didn’t accept that truth could emerge from a self-righting process, overcome falsehood, and become self-evident to everyone.

In Virginia, the reasoning for the Authoritarian/Communist approach was grounded in parental rights and the need to protect children from ideas the parents don’t accept. Children, this thinking goes, aren’t prepared to critically deal with what they see in books.

In Texas, the concern may have been more political. In 2021, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller joined a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The federal agency had said that transgender people should be allowed to use the bathrooms and follow dress codes that corresponded with their gender identities. A federal district judge decided in the state’s favor, and the Biden administration dropped its appeal. State officials now appear to want to limit any references to gender identities in equal-opportunity training.

Libertarian thinking would dismiss those viewpoints.

Children, from the Libertarian perspective, should be able to explore all ideas so they can develop reasoning abilities. In weighing the merits of what they read, young people should consider what their parents and other authority figures had taught them. The children, anchored in the solid moral foundations their parents had established, should ultimately be able to determine truth through the self-righting process. Consequently, they wouldn’t need protection from incorrect ideas.

Similar thinking would apply in Texas. Libertarian thinkers would advise leaders to give Department of Agriculture employees more credit. If the training session presented biased information, employees should be able to recognize any errors and ignore them.

Another theory—third-person effect in communication—may better explain the Virginia and Texas perspectives than the Libertarian press theory. Third-person effect, first explained by sociologist W. Phillips Davidson, says that people often think that a message will influence others even though that same message won’t influence them. Consequently, people who see a “threatening” message act to counter the effects of that message on others—even when “the defenders” have no evidence that others have been affected.

I learned long ago not to expect philosophical consistency in political debates. People usually adopt positions they find expedient, not consistent—no matter what ideology is usually associated with their political perspective. Nevertheless, theories give me a way to interpret what I see in the rough-and-tumble political arena and the pragmatic corporate world.

Press theories help us analyze moves against misinformation on social networks

Posted on July 21, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The recent controversy over federal efforts to prevent misinformation on social networks provides another opportunity to ponder how press theories can help us understand today’s media environment.

Opinions about who’s right and wrong in the case from New Orleans appear linked to whether Libertarian or Social Responsibility press theory guides how people view the situation. I outlined those theories in a July 15 post.

The New Orleans case first made news July 4 when U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty (Western District of Louisiana) blocked federal officials from trying to influence social media companies to suppress posts that the government considered misinformation. Topics for potential misinformation mentioned in the underlying lawsuit included public health, election integrity, and federal probes into actions by President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Doughty’s ruling July 14 and called for expedited arguments in the case. In 2022, attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri filed the legal action that led to July 4 injunction. The 2022 lawsuit claimed the federal government had censored free speech by discussing possible regulatory action against companies like Meta, Twitter, and Google if they didn’t remove what officials deemed misinformation.

Some Libertarian commentators hailed Doughty’s injunction as a victory for free speech and a blow to government censorship.

The Chicago Tribune, for example, editorialized July 7 that the federal government shouldn’t be censoring what Americans said on social networks. The newspaper said:

“Even now, having groups of advocates that pressure social media channels to remove what they see as damaging information is perfectly reasonable. Those groups are expressing their own rights to free speech and, as private entities, the social media channels can and should have their own rules on what they do and do not permit. …

“But that’s not what this case is about. The problem came up when the Biden administration opened up a back channel to sympathetic senior employees at Twitter. White House operatives openly pointed out problematic posts that they wanted taken down. …

“A private individual can attempt to do that. A government official should not. So says our Constitution.”

In classic Libertarian-theory language, the Tribune said: “In a free society, people have to be able to hear all sides, judge who they think can be trusted for themselves and navigate the free marketplace of ideas. Such is the choice Americans made long ago.” In fact, the newspaper said, the framers of the U.S. Constitution thought that “protecting free expression was, in the long run, the best protection that could be afforded an American.”

The New York Times appeared to view the situation through a Social Responsibility lens. The Times called Doughty’s injunction “a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online.” The injunction could hurt government “efforts to combat false and misleading narratives.”

Government officials, the Times reported July 4, had said they didn’t have the authority to order posts removed. Nevertheless, federal agencies and social media executives had long worked together to delete illegal or harmful material. These actions often involved child sexual abuse, human trafficking, and other criminal activity. Furthermore, federal officials had regularly shared information with social networks on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.

The Associated Press reported that social media companies routinely took down posts that violated company standards but were rarely compelled to do so by the U.S. government. Meta, parent of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, for example, restricted access to 27 items that it thought violated U.S. laws during the first six months of 2020. Meta reported no U.S.-specific content restrictions during 2021 or the first six months of 2022.

But Meta announced soon after the July 4 injunction that the company would not moderate discourse on Threads, the Washington Post reported July 14. Instead of corporate monitoring, Meta planned to give individual users greater control over what content they saw and didn’t see. Meta was reportedly already using that strategy—an apparent nod to Libertarian-theory thinking—on Facebook and Instagram.

“I hope over time we’ll have less of a discussion about what our big, crude algorithmic choices are and more about whether you guys feel that the individual controls we’re giving you on Threads feel meaningful to you,” Meta Global Affairs President Nick Clegg said in the Post story.

Several news organizations quoted a White House official using classic Social Responsibility language in response to the July 4 injunction:

“Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people but make independent choices about the information they present.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, appeared to judge the current controversy from a Social Responsibility perspective as well. He told the New York Times July 4 that he didn’t consider what the government was accused of doing censorship.

“It can’t be that the government violates the First Amendment simply by engaging with the platforms about their content-moderation decisions and policies,” Jaffer said. “If that’s what the court is saying here, it’s a pretty radical proposition that isn’t supported by the case law.”

Trying to identify the press theory shaping reactions to the July 4 ruling gives us another way to analyze public discourse and understand why people behave the way they do.

What happened to ‘raising funds’?

Posted on July 18, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The evolution of English is fascinating—and sometimes bewildering.

A July 18 New York Times story included this sentence:

“Prosecutors have been asking witnesses about the former president’s state of mind, as well as efforts to fund-raise off his false claims of widespread voter fraud and whether he knew he had lost.”

The use of “fund-raise” in that sentence as a verb stopped my reading.

Why would The New York Times, the one-time employer of Theodore Bernstein, author of The Careful Writer and Watch Your Language, use that verb form? What happened to “raise funds”?

When I started my journalism career in the early 1970s, nonprofit organizations and politicians regularly “raised funds.” Churches, for example, ran capital “fundraising” campaigns (an adjective from the transitive verb and direct object). Political candidates scheduled campaign “fundraisers” (a noun that again combined the verb with the direct object).

At first, “fundraising” and “fundraiser” were hyphenated in The Associate Press Stylebook. Once the usage became more common, the two compound forms evolved into single words.

Since 2010, I noticed the backward formation of the noun “fundraiser” into the verb “fund-raise” among my undergraduate students at Virginia Tech. The logic of their word usage was clear. Their word pattern followed the common practice among English speakers of turning nouns into verbs.

But why would anyone need to turn a noun into a new verb when English already had the idea of raising funds—the verb-object combination that led to “fundraiser” in the first place? My students repeatedly indicated that they had never heard of “raising funds.” They “fund-raised” in their student clubs. “Raising funds” sounded strange to them.

Writers at The New York Times may now think the same way. My reaction to what I see as unnecessary language evolution may indicate that I am channeling “Miss Thislebottom,” a Bernstein character known for outmoded rules of English usage. I am getting older.

What’s more practical than a good theory?

Posted on July 15, 2023July 18, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

I heard a recent NPR promotional message refer to “public service journalism.” I saw an Associated Press story about CBS News using solutions journalism to combat bad news fatigue.

These efforts to specify approaches to news storytelling got my attention. I wondered about the thinking behind them. One thing led to another, and my reflection covered more topics than I expected.

News executives at NPR and CBS are trying to (1) modify how they find and report stories and (2) change the way news consumers perceive what they receive each day on the air. The goal is to rebuild trust in traditional news organizations.

I have no issue with trying to reframe how Americans think about newsgathering. Print and broadcast news organizations—both local and national—have been losing credibility with Americans since the 1970s.

What’s in it for me?

Before an organization can change perceptions, however, it must know what the people it hopes to influence think or want. I have long advised clients—and taught students—to start communication planning by answering the question “What’s in it for me?” for the individuals and groups the organization wanted to influence.

Public service and solutions journalism may, indeed, be an effort to appeal to the self-interests of news consumers. But American journalists may need to consider more fundamental assumptions about their own views of modern society before they try to determine what will interest readers, listeners, or viewers. How do news executives themselves understand:

The nature of those they want to reach?
The nature of society?
The relationship of individuals to the state?
The nature of knowledge and truth?

These four topics were at the core of a seminal 1956 book that shaped my understanding of journalism: Four Theories of the Press. This text by Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm was required reading in many journalism schools from the late 1950s through the 1980s.

4 theories of the press

The four press theories are Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and Soviet. The Libertarian and Social Responsibility theories apply to news media in the United States and some Western European nations. U.S. journalists need to examine which theory is guiding their thinking and whether assumptions underlying that theory still apply to Americans today.

Theories explain and predict behaviors, outcomes, or relationships (How to Build Social Science Theories by Pamela Shoemaker, James W. Tankard Jr., and Dominic Lasorsa, 2004). We all use theories every day to decide how to live. We base our theories on observations, readings, experiences, or experiments. This evidence tells us what to expect from similar situations in the future. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin said in 1943 that nothing was more practical than a good theory. I concur.

Although working U.S. journalists may not recognize which theory they are using, that theory is still influencing what they do.

Libertarian press theory

The Libertarian press theory developed in England during the late 1600s. The theory reflects the thinking of John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and the philosophy of rationalism and natural rights.

Libertarian theory assumes that humans are rational and have the natural right to determine how they are governed. Humans will actively seek out information in a “free marketplace of ideas” to determine truth and keep track of what political leaders are doing. People individually weigh the facts and can distinguish truth from falsehood. Truth emerges from a “self-righting process,” overcomes falsehood, and becomes self-evident to everyone.

The press—usually privately owned—is a partner in the Libertarian search for truth. The press keeps citizens informed about government actions. The free flow of information allows citizens to keep government power in check.

The Libertarian “free marketplace of ideas” is open to anyone with adequate economic means to patriciate. In the beginning, “adequate means” meant access to a printing press or money to buy publications. Today, people may need only smartphones.

Nothing needs to control what is said or written in a Libertarian system. All people will be able to spot and ignore misinformation. In practice, however, Libertarian systems do limit some content: defamation, obscenity, or similar socially offensive material.

Libertarian thinking influenced America’s Founders and led to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Social Responsibility press theory

The Social Responsibility theory developed in the United States in the early 20th century because of changes in the media landscape. The thinking was distilled in A Free and Responsible Press, the 1947 report of The Commission on Freedom of the Press. The commission was a private group chaired by Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, and funded by Henry Luce, founder of Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and Fortune.

The commission assumed different things about humanity and society from Libertarian thinkers. While humans may be rational, they don’t always seek out information from all sides of a question or even see multiple news sources. Therefore, journalists need to help readers, listeners, and viewers find the truth by getting all the facts about an issue into the coverage that those individuals do see.

Furthermore, economic changes by the mid-20th century had limited access to the American marketplace of ideas. Media ownership was consolidated into the hands of a powerful few individuals or corporations. Media moguls resisted government controls on content. But they could limit who had access to the marketplace of ideas.

As a result, the commission maintained, this limited number of information gatekeepers could control the flow of ideas available to citizens and push agendas that would economically benefit corporate interests. That near-monopoly control of media content, the commission said, mandated that news organizations voluntarily operate responsibly for the good of society.

The marketplace of ideas in the Social Responsibility view moved from the minds of rational individuals to the pages and airways of news organizations. Those private operations needed to make sure that the public received all sides of a story and enough information to discover the truth and make wise political decisions. If news organizations didn’t voluntarily act responsibly, the commission warned, some other social force—either public or private—may need to step in to make sure journalists do the right thing.

By the time of the 1947 commission report, Social Responsibility concepts had already influenced the thinking behind the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934. Those laws governed the U.S. broadcast industry. The 1934 act established the Federal Communication Commission.

Consequently, our current media system includes vestiges of both theories. Furthermore, the theories are not mutually exclusive. Libertarians could choose to operate responsibly. They just didn’t have to.

Are theoretical assumptions still valid?

The spread of the Worldwide Web in the 1990s, the growth of social networks in the early 2000s, and the recent rise of mobile applications have drastically changed the media environment since the 1947 Commission on Freedom of the Press report. The media landscape again is much more Libertarian.

Economic barriers to the marketplace of ideas have been reduced. Big media companies compete with individuals on smartphones and computers. Anyone with internet or cellular access can now share information through a mobile application, social network, or website with vast numbers of people. Receivers don’t usually have to pay to see that information, either.

But are Libertarian assumptions still valid? Will humans seek out information on all sides of a question? Can they distinguish truth from falsehood? Do they look to news organizations to provide the information that citizens need to check government power?

What about Social Responsibility assumptions? Do news organizations need to include all sides of a story to help news consumers determine the truth? Do readers, listeners, and viewers want to see multiple viewpoints in their news coverage? Should news reports go beyond basic facts (which are supposed to let readers, listeners, or viewers make up their own minds)? Should content help people analyze social issues or political questions and consider solutions? Do news consumers expect the press to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? Should journalists devote so much effort to reporting on political issues, government actions, or community problems?

Applying the theories today

Serving the public interest or offering ways to address social problems—approaches represented by the NPR and CBS journalism labels—appears to reflect Social Responsibility thinking and the assumptions about news consumers behind that theory.

Journalists are in privileged positions. They have unfettered access to the marketplace of ideas. Consequently, these reporters have a responsibility to look beyond the basic who, what, when, where, and why of a story to see how they can help citizens find truth and contribute to a better society. The Social Responsibility theory would predict that news consumers would respect that approach, appreciate the utilitarian reporting, and use the content to make informed decisions about government.

The modern, more Libertarian, media landscape, however, has diminished the influence of traditional news organizations. People can easily hear other voices—if those individuals are willing to seek out various viewpoints. News consumers determine for themselves what content is most appealing and credible.

Research, however, repeatedly indicates that Americans live in partisan echo chambers. Party affiliation often determines which news sources people use, what they see as truth, and whether they will continue subscribing. An award-winning research paper slated for presentation at the August 2023 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference found, among other things, that if news content didn’t continually gratify consumers, they were not likely to continue subscribing to a news service (another example of “what’s in it for me?” as well as uses and gratification theory—another topic).

NPR and CBS, by the way, are trusted more by liberals than conservatives, according to Pew Research.

The continuing perception—promoted by some journalists and by many media critics—that traditional news organizations have uncontrolled power to influence public opinion—may further weaken any efforts to be seen as trustworthy. The Gallup Organization reported July 6 that faith in U.S. institutions—including newspapers and television news—was near historic lows. Only 18% of Americans had a great deal or fair amount of faith in newspapers. Only 14% had similar faith in TV news. The all-time low for newspapers was 16% and for television news was 11%. Both low points were reached in 2022.

I have no magic solutions for building trust in news organizations. I don’t want to discourage news executives from finding new ways to appeal to readers, listeners, or viewers. I support thorough reporting. Presenting all sides of a story is the socially responsible thing to do—and should be acceptable to Libertarians as well.

But I recognize that confronting people with ideas they oppose—especially in today’s partisan environment—may not be the best way to attract new subscribers or build trust. What socially responsible journalists might call broad, balanced reporting might not please news consumers who hold certain political opinions and could simply be rejected as “fake news.”

Nevertheless, how you understand the current media landscape, the nature of news consumers, the social role of journalists, and the best way to develop news content depends on which theory you think describes the American press system.

Some words just clutter sentences

Posted on July 8, 2023July 18, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The default SurveyMonkey message to inform people that an online questionnaire is no longer available says, “This survey is currently closed.”

“Currently” in that sentence is unnecessary. “Currently” means “now” and is usually redundant with a present-tense verb. “Currently” can’t make the survey can’t be any more closed than it is. If I opened the survey again, it would then be available.

I delete “currently” from the message whenever I close an online SurveyMonkey questionnaire.

“Currently” is a “clutter word.” I see such words all the time, but they add no information to a sentence. They just add length. Unnecessary words in sentences reduce readability scores.

A recent Washington Post story included another example:

“Fonts are ‘the clothes that words wear,’ said early 20th-century editor Beatrice Warde. They also embody style, emotion and authority.”

In this paragraph, “also” in the second sentence is the clutter word. “Also” is usually unnecessary in a sentence that adds to the information in a previous sentence. The new sentence indicates a new idea (in addition to the one in the previous sentence).

Note, however, that “also” is appropriate in the construction “not only … but also.”

“In order” before an infinitive (“in order to decide”) are other clutter words. They are almost always unnecessary.

“On” is rarely needed in a sentence before a day or date (“I arrived Friday.”). One exception is when the sentence begins with the day or date (“On Monday, I will see the doctor”).

Because conciseness is one goal of good writing, think twice before you add “currently,” “also,” “in order,” or “on” to a sentence.

A growing amount of annoyance about the increasing number of uses

Posted on July 1, 2023July 18, 2023 by Douglas F. Cannon

The website said, “2.1—The amount of full-time jobs minimum wage workers need to work to be able to afford an average one bedroom apartment.”

I appreciated the factoid. The wording annoyed me.

The use of “amount” in the web post reflects a growing tendency. I regularly see it in news stories and student work. I hear it on radio and television and in conversations with colleagues, who—as educated university faculty members—I would expect to know better.

The Associated Press Stylebook (56th edition, 2022-2024) says:

“Use amount for things that cannot be counted individually: the amount of milk in the refrigerator, the amount of courage it takes to climb Mount Everest. For things that can be counted individually, use number: The number of soldiers in the army, the number of books in the library.”

Other style references define the same distinction. My Microsoft Word grammar checker highlights “amount” and suggests “number” when the sentence refers to items that can be counted. The grammar checker explains that “some words are similar but are used differently.” Nevertheless, the misuse of “amount” persists.

I have observed that many people younger than 45 use “amount” instead of “number” when they refer to things that can be counted. For example, three second-year graduate students I worked with this year all wrote “amount of people” in early drafts of their final papers.

Because college-educated people commonly use “amount” instead of “number,” I suspect the distinction will soon be lost for most speakers and writers. Still, I think the different word use is helpful. That thought probably makes me a curmudgeon. Now that I’ve retired from full-time work, I have more time to be grumpy about such annoying language changes.

Douglas F. Cannon

Thoughts from a retired public relations educator

Month: July 2023