In BREAKING THE NEWS: HOW THE MEDIA UNDERMINE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, James Fallows accuses his mass media colleagues of failing to hold up their end in the quest to fulfill the dream of American democracy. As Washington editor for THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, a regular commentator on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition,” and author of an award winning book on national defense, Fallows is able to criticize the media as a respected insider. As a result, this book has drawn considerable media attention.

Fallows’ critique is multifaceted. He faults the media for shortsighted commercialism, which, in turn, leads to acute overemphasis on the “horse race” aspects of politics, heavy doses of cynicism rather than a balanced view of how politicians and government perform, and a superficial approach to news bereft of much needed historical context. He also faults selected media “stars” for putting monetary gain ahead of professional integrity. These shortcomings damage not only American democratic institutions, but the creditability of the media as well. As a result, both receive low approval ratings from the American public.

There is hope, according to Fallows, in an emerging commitment to what he calls “public journalism.” The section on public journalism, however, is brief and underdeveloped.

The book has additional weaknesses. Fallows draws broad conclusions from evidence that is anecdotal and fragmentary. He also fails to deal thoroughly with the complex triangular relationship between the media, political institutions, and the public. This omission substantially blunts Fallows’ critique.

Still, Fallows offers a compelling alternative both to the media’s smug self-image and the right-wing portrayal of the media as a sinister liberal conspiracy.

Sources for Further Study

AJR: American Journalism Review. XVIII, March, 1996, p. 46.

The American Scholar. LXV, Summer, 1996, p. 472.

Booklist. XCII, January 1, 1996, p. 748.

Business Week. February 19, 1996, p. 14.

Columbia Journalism Review. XXXIV, March, 1996, p. 49.

Esquire. CXXV, January, 1996, p. 28.

Folio. XXV, May 15, 1996, p. 18.

Los Angeles Times Book Review. February 4, 1996, p. 3.

The Nation. CCLXII, February 5, 1996, p. 25.

The New York Times Book Review. CI, January 28, 1996, p. 8.

Publishers Weekly. CCXLIII, January 1, 1996, p. 67.

Time. CXLVII, January 22, 1996, p. 68.

Washington Monthly. XXVIII, January, 1996, p. 43.

The Washington Post Book World. XXVI, February 4, 1996, p. 4.

In Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy, James Fallows accuses most of his colleagues in the mass media of failing to hold up their end in the quest to fulfill the dream of American democracy. As Washington editor for The Atlantic Monthly, a regular commentator on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, and author of an award- winning book on national defense, Fallows is in a position to criticize the media as a respected insider. As a result, this book has drawn considerable media attention. Whether it will make a lasting impression remains to be seen.

Although a particularly shortsighted commercialism appears to be the main fountainhead of the media’s failure to perform, Fallows’ critique is multifaceted. For an opener, Fallows condemns the media’s pervasive emphasis on the “horse race” aspects of politics at the expense of serious analysis of public policy issues. As examples, Fallows cites not only election coverage, which focuses on who is leading by how much and the strategies employed to capture public support, but also on policy debates such as that over President Clinton’s health care reform bill in 1993-1994. According to Fallows, media coverage of this debate never really came to terms with the technical merit of Clinton’s proposal or any of the numerous counterproposals which were offered in Congress. Instead, the media focused on tactics employed to promote and defeat various health care proposals, while the American public remained largely ignorant as to the potential consequences both of health care reform and the failure to enact reform.

Connected to this is the media’s unrelenting cynicism toward public figures and even government institutions as a whole. Since the focus is on tactical wheeling and dealing rather than on the substantive differences between candidates and bills, politics is seen primarily as an enterprise in public relations, with manipulation and subterfuge being the name of the game. Members of the media compound this serious distortion of what politics is really about by exhibiting deep—indeed, one might even say, dogmatic—skepticism. Conveying belief in a program, party, or individual is considered far too risky or subjective. Instead, reporters and commentators take on what they see as a more sophisticated attitude—one of wary suspicion. While Fallows does not urge media operatives to become true believers or political cheerleaders, he does argue that a more balanced view of political motives and performance would be far better for public morale and also more accurate.

Corollary to the fashionable skepticism of media coverage is the inability or unwillingness of contemporary reporters to get beyond the surface of stories in order to understand their true meaning. Reporters not only lack the depth of knowledge to carefully gauge the sincerity of politicians and government officials, they also lack apparent incentives—commercial or otherwise—to acquire such knowledge. As a result, an air of cynicism becomes a handy and economical substitute for the difficult work of boning up on the fine points of public policy.

This convenient superficiality leads in turn to news coverage which emphasizes novelty, entertainment, and controversy for its own sake. On the other hand, in-depth analysis is in severely short supply. The public instead gets a confusing abundance of images and facts, along with incessant scandal and squawking. News coverage is bereft of much needed historical context or other forms of explanation. Also lacking is any substantial follow-up to current headlines. Stories come and go, remaining in the public eye only until the novelty has worn off. Although Fallows credits the media for making some progress in the quest for meaningful background, he believes that the political world conveyed by the media still usually lacks coherence and perspective.

Personal greed and ambition are also factors in the failure of mass media, according to Fallows. More specifically, Fallows faults selected media “stars” for putting monetary gain and fame ahead of professional ethics and personal integrity. He has in mind particularly those celebrities who do the Sunday morning scene on shows such as Firing Line and The McLaughlin Group. These journalists maintain their popularity (and disparately high incomes) on the tube by emphasizing controversy for its own sake and preparing quick quips on every issue that is likely to come up, whether they are knowledgeable on the topic or not. Fallows also doubts the objectivity of journalists who take large speaking fees from corporations and interest groups upon whom they might someday have to report.

The result of all this collective and individual dereliction of duty is to seriously undermine the foundation of American democratic institutions. Nor do the mass media themselves prosper. For the irony is that, while news coverage erodes public faith in government, public opinion polls show increasing dissatisfaction with news sources themselves; dissatisfaction with all the negativity, sensationalism, and exploitiveness alluded to above. Thus, mass media are also undermining their own long term credibility in the quest for short term commercial success.

There is hope, according to Fallows, in an emerging commitment to what he calls “public journalism.” By public journalism, Fallows means news coverage and analysis which gauges and addresses the deeper concerns of communities and citizens rather than pandering to the public’s all too apparent appetite for scandal and controversy for their own sake. As in many books such as this one, however, the section on solutions is highly speculative and fragmentary.

The book has other weaknesses as well. While most readers will readily recognize the sorts of media behavior singled out for criticism by Fallows, there is a lack of systematic evidence needed to support the broad conclusions he draws about the overall image of American politics cast by the media. True, one can find plenty of horse race type coverage, news stories lacking sufficient background, and television commentators who cast more heat than light. Yet one also can find wonderfully informative articles in the better newspapers and magazines. In-depth coverage of politics on C-Span I and II is also available to members of the public who are interested enough to commit themselves to the search for thorough information.

The fact that not that many citizens are so committed brings up the most fundamental oversight of Fallows’ book, which is his failure to deal thoroughly with the complex triangular relationship between the media, political institutions, and the American people. For, even if the media fall short on a daily basis in all the ways noted by Fallows, it is also true that, on an equally daily basis, politicians provide an abundance of “probable cause” for skepticism regarding their words, deeds, and motives; and also that the American public, as a whole, exhibits little interest in taking the time necessary to make themselves well informed about politics and public affairs.

Likewise, Fallows fails to seriously examine the irony that current media practices simultaneously increase circulation while reducing public approval of the media. Here, the effect is much like that of negative advertising in political campaigns. The public proclaims disgust at negative advertisements, yet candidates and consultants continue to use them because they appear to be effective; that is, the public responds to them. In the case of media sensationalism, negativity, and superficiality, the public expresses disdain, but they stay away in droves from serious programming and, as consumers, vote for the very sort of unsatisfactory news coverage they claim to dislike.

Coming at it from another angle, Fallows blames the media for the public’s disaffection from and disinterest in American politics. Yet one might consider whether the relationship is not actually reversed. Perhaps it is the lack of an aggressive, committed citizenry which has produced the media the United States has today, and which threatens American democracy. This question is skirted by Fallows, perhaps because it provides a far more troubling scenario for those, like himself, who believe, or at least wish to believe, that democratic institutions can not only survive but also proceed toward ever greater perfection.

Connected to this is Fallows’ failure to look systematically at the relation between inadequate journalism and the profit motive, this despite the fact that he links much of his critique to the media’s self-defeating commercialism. If mass media officials are in a position where they must choose between thorough, penetrating journalism or satisfying a mass audience demanding crass entertainment, then “public journalism” of the sort advocated by Fallows probably will not become the norm. The truth is that much of Fallows discussion appears to assume just such a situation. In short, with regard to the political and economic context within which the mass media must perform, Fallows’ own analysis suffers from a lack of depth.

Despite these criticisms, Fallows’ book makes a substantial contribution to public debate about the condition and contributions of mass media in the United States. If nothing else, it offers a compelling alternative to the images of the media which dominate public discourse: that is, on the one hand, the media’s smug self-image as the nation’s conscience, and, on the other, the common right-wing image of the media (or national media, anyway) as an insidious liberal, or left-wing, conspiracy. To those who hold the first view, Fallows offers a chilling wake-up call. You are not doing the job, Fallows tells them, and, as a result, you are hurting American democracy, perhaps irreparably. To those who hold the second view (and who are probably far less likely to read this book), Fallows offers a similarly pungent reality check. Painting the media as essentially “liberal,” he suggests, is misleading and, in some ways, even too kind, since media performance currently makes the job of all politicians—no matter what their ideology—tougher than it should be.

Finally, Fallows’ book is valuable because it raises important questions about the real performance of American democracy, helping citizens to get beyond the uncritical self- praise that has marked their post-Cold War euphoria. True, Americans have outlasted the Soviet Union and won the Cold War. In that sense, the American way of life has triumphed. What Americans have not done so far, however, is to deal with the remaining distance between their democratic ideals and the reality of their far from flawless democratic institutions, including the mass media. Doing so will require much serious introspection of the sort contained in Breaking the News.

Sources for Further Study

AJR: American Journalism Review. XVIII, March, 1996, p. 46.

The American Scholar. LXV, Summer, 1996, p. 472.

Booklist. XCII, January 1, 1996, p. 748.

Business Week. February 19, 1996, p. 14.

Columbia Journalism Review. XXXIV, March, 1996, p. 49.

Esquire. CXXV, January, 1996, p. 28.

Folio. XXV, May 15, 1996, p. 18.

Los Angeles Times Book Review. February 4, 1996, p. 3.

The Nation. CCLXII, February 5, 1996, p. 25.

The New York Times Book Review. CI, January 28, 1996, p. 8.

Publishers Weekly. CCXLIII, January 1, 1996, p. 67.

Time. CXLVII, January 22, 1996, p. 68.

Washington Monthly. XXVIII, January, 1996, p. 43.

The Washington Post Book World. XXVI, February 4, 1996, p. 4.