As I spent the day unpacking after moving into MU, I scrolled through Twitter to watch the breaking news covering Afghanistan. That Sunday, Aug. 15, was the day Kabul was overrun by the Taliban offensive that had lasted the better part of two decades.  

However, as I was scrolling, I saw radio host and conservative activist Charlie Kirk state that the fall of Afghanistan could’ve been stopped if the generals “weren’t so focused on white rage,” following the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot.

While this tweet made my blood boil, the ones that hurt worse were from bigger media institutions blaming a single person, President Joe Biden, for a conflict that has thousands to blame. This lousy journalism ignores crucial, extenuating events that led up to the country’s demise.

However, this problem is not new. National media organizations and institutions have repeatedly failed to explain the complexity of international events. Strict deadlines and favoring quantity over quality have led to sloppier, lazier and more base-line journalism. Worse yet, partisan media use simplified issues for political gain and blunt the value of the original event. This creates a cyclical process in which media organizations take issues and remove all complexity in order to better produce and sell it. This is a massive disservice to the news profession and the audience who are trying to understand these issues.

 The reason why the modern, staffed, objective news source was created was to allow for better researched, less political and professional research. Dr. Jeffrey Pasley, a history of journalism professor at MU, identified one way news was supposed to get better: the introduction of 24/7 news. Dr. Pasley said, “The 24-hours-a-day format would allow for journalists to really go into the issues and thoroughly explain them which would help people truly understand huge conflicts and issues.”

However, the media quickly faltered with this goal. News programs realized that they did not not have the ability to adequately play groundbreaking news all day, every day. Additionally, new cable media channels came on the foreground trying to replicate the 24/7 model, which added more competition for the previous channels. Cable media channels started going for repetition by touching on the same subject for hours a day with few changes; these stories ate away at time and filled up programming slots. One of the unintended consequences of talking about the same event for hours a day for days was that it created sensationalistic stories. The American public devoured this content and media organizations were compelled to aim for sensationalism, even if it was the antithesis of the original goal journalists should be going for.

Editors and business executives running these institutions put even tighter deadlines on journalists to fully transition to a market built on quantity. The people running these institutions are not focused on the pillars of journalistic ethics and truthfulness; their job, as businesspersons, is to make money. Creating more stories allowed for more advertising revenue and sensationalism made even more people want to read or watch these stories. This human response gave editors the imperative to push for oversimplified stories that everyone else was running. What started as a noble goal by the media quickly turned into a simplified and repetitive journalism culture —  because that is what sells best in the market. 

While it will be hard to topple a system that has thrived for three decades, journalism needs to change. Even though the pursuit of a more informed community through constant news is a fantastic idea, journalists need the ability to perform long-term journalism and focus on complexity in issues. The public and the journalistic community can and must push for fixing the trust in the industry. For starters, the eyes and ears of the public can be a voice used to change the system. Watch, read and support quality journalism that tells stories that delve into the complexity and without sensationalism. One of the only things that business executives will respond to is revenue. By not interacting with media that lacks quality and trust, the public can push these institutions for better practices. Additionally, pushing for former journalists in executive positions will start to change the mindset from the top-down. As for journalists, unionizing in the industry can help protect your job and give you the freedom to tell better stories free of clickbait and misconstrued coverage. There is no silver bullet for fixing this culture but with both sides working together, the industry will eventually get better and redeem its trust in the public’s eyes. 

Afghanistan coverage was extremely oversimplified, but this issue is not an outlier. We see this parasitic trend continue with the coverage in Kabul: repetitive, sensational reporting that tied the entire event back to American politics. The public deserves better coverage of events and they deserve the whole truth. While the whole truth may never sell as well, it is essential for having a more informed public.

The Maneater and its staff support the pursuit of high-quality and well-thought out journalism. We encourage all readers and supporters of good journalism to donate to the Investigative Reporters and Editors. The IRE is an organization dedicated to improving the quality of investigative journalism and connecting journalists around the world  through the use of sharing sources, good techniques, and ideas. https://www.ire.org/donate/

Edited by Sarah Rubinstein | srubinstein@themaneater.com