By ROBERT JUMPER
Tutiyi (Snowbird) and Clyde, N.C.
Okay, this is probably one of my most unpopular topics, particularly to my colleagues. I really have an issue with media outlets that attempt to manipulate public opinion by injecting media bias, or that of their advertisers, into news stories. Moreover, I am concerned that those who manage news media operations attempt to convince their readership that the bias is not happening.
It doesn’t matter how good a writer or journalist a person is, try as they might, their opinion is going to seep into the reporting of events happening and actions taken. It may not be blatant. It may be in the turn of a phrase, or an assumption expressed, or a telling of part of the story while leaving out the part that is not appealing to the writer but may be the most relevant to the reader.
The current tactic of using mundane and meaningless trivia to attract readers is really concerning. Print space, and for that matter, online space on media websites/social media, are powerful tools. Properly wielding this type of power requires strong ethics and sometimes a compassionate heart for your readership and for the community that the media serves. In a community that is so extremely divided in all areas of living, in faith, in governance, in sociology, it takes very little “spark” to cause additional divisiveness.
I know, I am beating a dead horse, but this is so important for readers to understand. I so want all of us to make decisions like our lives depend on it, because that could be reality. But in many cases, readers like you and I are left to wonder if an article we have read is a factual account or the meanderings of a pundit who has selectively crafted their article to express their judgment of what is to be considered true.
Is a free press freer than a governmentally-regulated press? Well, yes and no. Surely, a free press is a major deal to most societies. It is so much so in the United States that it is stated in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. We have it codified in our law in Chapter 75 of the Cherokee Code (but not in our governing document, the Charter). Surely, there is less chance of governmental manipulation in a privately owned (be it profit or non-profit) media outlet. But we must consider who has ownership. The beef with government-owned and -operated media has always been the fear that the government would control the content and therefore be able to manipulate the message and the people. But what about manipulation by the owners, operators, and managers of news organizations? What about the writers themselves?
On this subject, I have been characterized as a “glass-half-full” or a “doom and gloom” guy. Or that I am just propagating a false narrative about media created by one faction or another to prevent people from learning certain truths. Or that maybe I am just a naïve dupe being used by “them” to destroy the credibility of mainstream media. But the influence of some writers, anchors, and purveyors of information infused in their articles and reporting is unmistakable. No fantasy here. Just a deep concern that the media, wittingly or unwittingly, is one of the factors in causing the societal divides that most of us feel and fear. Most of us have no problems believing that there are bad actors in the realm of governance. It would be foolish and defy logic to think that there are no bad actors in the field of journalism. That, indeed, would be living in a fantasy world.
Manipulation, whether blatant, subtle, or hidden, is not what I personally want in a newspaper or media outlet. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy good commentary and even might be convinced by a writer who expresses his or her opinion with the right zeal and logic. And there are even times when a person cannot muster a logical argument, but their confidence in their position is so enthusiastic that I can make up my mind to take it on faith. But at least, if these expressed thoughts are properly identified as commentary, I understand not to be misguided into thinking that all the words of the writer are to be taken as fact.
Giving specific examples of what I’m talking about when I refer to those writers who attempt, be it conscious or unconscious, to manipulate through selective or suggestive prose is a challenge. There is an adage that states, “any press is good press.” By giving print or media space to a writer or their publication, even if it is to criticize a behavior, potentially promotes their brand and, in the end, may accomplish one of the typical goals of sensational writing, which is to promote self. But most readers may easily find examples of this type of writing and media presentation. Unfortunately, it is prevalent in many of the modern media outlets.
Most stories, like people, have “good and bad sides”. In almost all cases, a journalist will make the effort to explore and report all the information relevant to the education of the community. But just as there are just and unjust situations in life, so too there are just and unjust reporters. And what I mean by being unjust is that they neglect relevant information or promote their theories on an issue as expert analysis when it is really just opinion sharing.
We are supposed to be ethical and sensitive in our approach to coverage as journalists. We may have extremely passionate positions on the very subjects that we cover day-to-day. One of the benefits we enjoy in a democracy (or a representative republic) is the right to speak our minds to our fellow citizens and to the public. But the mind can house both fact and fiction. When we don’t have facts, we are prone to suppose. And we can do that all on our own. Some call it “thinking out loud.” We don’t need manipulation from an overzealous writer who, instead of expressing their opinions in opinion letters or commentaries, chooses to interweave their opinions into articles to be taken as fact by their unsuspecting readers.
Just a small example of the danger of supposition in news coverage and interpretation: Hypothetically, a person is accused and arrested for a crime. Now, accusation and arrest are certainly cause for a heightened awareness from the community. Crime is an attractive beat for journalists. Some because it is one of those areas of public interest where there isn’t a need to sensationalize. Many of the stories of crime and punishment are far beyond what an everyday reader will encounter in their lives. But, as any good journalist (and most attorneys) will tell you, accusation and arrest are not a judgment of guilt. Depending on how that story is communicated in the media, and when, it will affect the public perception of both the accused and the accuser. If a journalist is assigned to a beat like crime coverage and gets a few stories under their belt, they may get the impression in their heads that they are experts in that field. This can happen with long-time writers or those fresh out of journalism school. And when you think you are an expert, you tend to think it is okay to pontificate in news stories. And it happens all over the journalistic spectrum, from national to regional to local news. Now you typically won’t see a full-blown scandal sheet-type newspaper or media outlet anymore, but even mundane and meaningless trivia will sometimes be peppered with the writer’s supposition as “expertise” on a matter.
I found an interesting quote on Wikipedia on this subject. “Scandal sheets were the precursors to tabloid journalism. Around 1770, scandal sheets appeared in London, and in the United States as early as the 1840s. Scandal sheets in the early 20th century were usually 4- or 8-page cheap papers specializing in the lurid and profane, sometimes used to grind political, ideological, or personal axes, sometimes to make money (because ‘scandal sells’), and sometimes for extortion.” Klatt, Wayne (2009). Chicago journalism: a history, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Please don’t interpret this as a condemnation of the craft. Good writing is like good art. I indeed consider journalists who are ethical and discerning in their reporting to be artists in this field. And by way of comparison, in the field of journalism, you have your fine artists, and then you have your graffiti artists. I know several incredible, talented journalists who faithfully and professionally undertake the work of historical documentation. In fact, I work with a couple. I also know a few who are not. Even the best journalists can be drawn into using poor judgment when the lure of gaining popularity from a sensational story is before them or when faced with the potential for financial gain.
I firmly believe in the free press. It is a concept that we, on the Qualla Boundary, fight for constantly. I am also a big fan of our local media outlets. Like many of my colleagues, I think the community’s best chance of getting the straight stories comes at the local level and having multiple sources to get a full view of the issues. But free press doesn’t mean a free-for-all when it comes to ethical journalism. It means, to me, that the press will be free to document the truth, the whole truth. And the truth isn’t the writer’s personal or political agenda.
There is a saying that I have heard since I was a boy here in the mountains. “Take it with a grain of salt” is a phrase that I have long understood to mean that things aren’t always what they seem. This is true for many things in life, including journalism, or what passes for it in some people’s eyes. Looking at this phrase, I found a little Wiki-wisdom that was eye-opening for me. “The phrase is thought to come from Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia regarding the discovery of a recipe written by the Pontic king Mithridates to make someone immune to poison. One of the ingredients in the recipe was a grain of salt. Threats involving poison were thus to be taken ‘with a grain of salt’, and therefore less seriously.” www.phrases.org.uk.
Poison. Strong word for a profession that has so much influence on how we live today. Journalism used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate, the watchdog for our society, sounding the alarm when things were becoming poisonous for our communities. But that designation of Fourth Estate has all but vanished from modern culture. “Americans’ confidence in the mass media has edged down to a new low, with just 28% expressing a ‘great deal’ or ‘ a fair amount ‘ of trust in newspapers, television, and radio to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. This is down from 31 percent last year and 40 percent five years ago. Meanwhile, seven in 10 U.S adults now say they have ‘not very much’ confidence (36 percent) or ‘not at all’ (34%). News.gallup.com. Oct. 2, 2025.
Just my opinion, but we, as organized media, continue to try to use that Jedi Mind Trick from Star Wars to convince our readers that we are indeed ethical outlets focused on truth-telling, writing opinion pieces that attempt to convince the masses. But if the community continues to see journalists editorialize in their reporting, we are communicating to them that we are capable of “talking the talk,” but we are unwilling to “walk the walk.” The reason that confidence in our profession is waning is obvious to the readers; it should be obvious to those of us in this business. All we need is to have the courage and integrity to accept the community’s wisdom and make a change in how we report.
