Geelmuyden.Kiese

TANKER

AMBUSH JOURNALISM BACKFIRE
21.07.2009

Norwegian journalists’ misguided self-image can determine the outcome of the upcoming election.

The media is called the fourth estate because of its apparent power to influence the political agenda and the public mind. Therefore, it seems like a paradox that the right wing populist party Frp the past decade has outclassed political competitors on the opinion polls, when journalists are relatively left-leaning and notoriously merciless to Frp and party leader Siv Jensen. The fact that this paradox continues to take journalists by surprise, demonstrates the poor self-insight of their estate. Because when journalists demonstrate their power by attacking a public persona, the reader’s conclusion is produced by reversed psychology.

According to a survey carried out by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and research earlier this year, people regard the journalist profession as fairly unimportant. Despite their societal responsibility and a certain degree of fame, journalists actually have a low status in the society. This finding evoked only curious interest when the survey was launched, and journalisten.no (branch web-magazine for journalists) remarked that the findings did not quite correspond with the journalists’ self-image.

The journalists’ self-image is the key to understanding the media’s reversed impact on people’s voting habits and sympathies. The professional integrity of journalism is based on a loyalty to some kind of truth or objectivity, an ideal most journalists identify with. For the same reason, journalists assume that the readers perceive their writing as a representation of reality. But why should the reader trust the journalist?

In the book Taleworlds and storyrealms from 1987, linguist Katharine Young analyses how people relate to the stories they are told. She discovers a pattern in how people filter information. When people are told a story, they do not only listen to what is said, but develop their own set of interpretations through different frames: their experience of storyteller, how the story resonates with the world as they know it, and how these factors resonate.

This pattern explains the reversed psychology of ambush journalism: When journalists attack Siv Jensen, the only ones listening to the journalists’ argument, are the already convinced members of the audience. Others see a ruthless attack by the fourth estate. When Siv Jensen complains about being discriminated by the media, the readers sympathize with her because they recognize the validity of her complaint. The same dynamic influences the audience’s view of politicians when the debate show host whips opponents up against one another: politicians who demonstrate little respect for weaker opponents lose the sympathy of the voters. Regardless of who is winning the argument, what is really at stake is the attacker’s credibility.

The breach of confidence between the media and the population can have a severe impact on the society. In the USA, as much as of 69 % of the population perceives the media as prejudiced and imbalanced. The documentary Outfoxed from 2004 shows a connection between Americans’ weakened confidence in the media and the increasing belief in consipiracy theories. Naturally, people should always be critical of what they are told, but when the skepticism takes over, the society loses its legitimate arena for public debate. A society where people only confer with like-minded at small and fragmented arenas, offers little possibility for democratic progression.

Before the election campaigns launch, I would like to warn against the ambush journalism that tends to characterize Norwegian media the months before the election. It is not only a flawed way to present politics; it’s a strategy that undermines the legitimacy of the media. The society depends on the fourth estate to show us the political differences between the parties rather than the level of pressure the politicians can handle. Dear journalists – please, give us an election campaign where the best politics, and not the most credible media victim, wins.

Anja Sletteland