Phil Trounstine, Political Editor of the San Jose-Mercury News, delivered a paper outlining the line between cynicism and skepticism and offering a suggestion for how journalists can keep it in sight, argues that journalists can avoid cynicism by focusing their coverage on the effects of public actions rather than speculating on the motives. This is more valuable to readers, and allows for the possibility too often missed in the coverage of the interior of people's actions: that a person might have complex and sometimes conflicting motives (i.e., personal ambition and public good).

"...Perhaps we continue to write and edit with a cynical edge because we don't fully understand what cynicism is, how to recognize it, and how it differs from skepticism. So my object here today is to offer a fuller definition of cynicism, and to discuss how we can know it when we see it. Maybe by clarifying the differences between cynicism and skepticism we can avoid the former and practice the latter.

"...I believe that the best of us, despite public perceptions, are not cynics. Although we may carp and sneer particularly among ourselves, underneath the crusty exterior lies for most of us a rather idealistic belief, perhaps even faith, that if we do our jobs well, if we report fairly, accurately, and intelligently...something akin to truth will emerge and the American people in their collective wisdom will use that information to advance the cause of democracy. We are, most of us, guided by this rather Jeffersonian notion of our role.

"Yet in some quarters one is considered a gullible rube if he suggests that he actually believes in such lofty ideals, or any ideals. It seems the worst thing a reporter or commentator can be accused of in certain circles is not inaccuracy or unfairness, but credulousness--to be taken in, fooled and bamboozled.

"So what is cynicism?

"'A cynic,' Oscar Wilde once said, 'is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.'

"Classical cynicism derived from the sect of philosophers in ancient Greece founded by Antisthenes, a pupil of Socrates. They were marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease, wealth, and the enjoyments of life. The most famous was Diogenes who carried the principle of the sect to an extreme form of asceticism.

"Now today cynicism, has come to mean the attitude of a person who is disposed to rail or find fault, one who shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives or actions and is want to express this by sneers and sarcasms....An assumption that all people are motivated by selfishness and that institutions are inept at best, corrupt at worst.

"'Cynicism,' according to former Brown University President Vartan Gregorian as he put it last spring is the 'most corrosive of human failings. Cynicism sews suspicion and distrust, demeans hope, and debases idealism.'

"...Not content to describe impacts and effects, the cynic tends to ascribe motives which are almost universally shallow or ignoble. That a politician's personal motives might also coincide with the public good is a logical impossibility to the cynic, and the very idea that some politicians, officials, and policymakers might on occasion act out of principle is to the cynic a joke.

"As Michael Lewis wrote approvingly in the New Republic a while ago, "The cynic sees the world as a vast comic tableau. The distance he puts between himself and others saves time, money, anxiety and a great deal of moral indignation."

"...Some hallmarks of the cheap edge include blithe labeling and the inherent assumption of insincerity. When these are coupled with what Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Capella referred to as a strategic frame in which all politics is reduced to a game or a performance, the not so subliminal message to the reader is don't take this guy at his word...

"Marketplace cynicism often originates at the news desk. Not long after it was reported that Eddie DeBartolo, the owner of the San Francisco 49ers was under investigation for influence peddling in Louisiana. It appeared that San Francisco Mayor Willy Brown's new stadium proposal was in jeopardy. An editor of mine called me to suggest that I do a story on how politicians use sports and stadium projects for their own personal gain.

"As we discussed the idea it occurred to us that one could just as easily argue that politicians pursue sports facilities because their constituents want them. So why frame a story, we asked, from such a cynical perspective? We scrapped the idea. ... Sometimes with good reporting we know what motivates a particular politician or his political operation, but often we get into trouble when we assume that the people we're writing about are motivated wholly or primarily by self interest.

"Jamieson and Capella argue that by supplanting the what of politics with the why, we have interiorized the process, making it about the psyche and self of individual politicians, rather than about policies and the outcomes on the lives of the citizenry. By answering the question why through the assumption of self interest in conflict with public interest, we risk casting everyone in political life as a venal schemer.

"But shouldn't good political reporting also explain the tactical or strategic impact of a candidate's remarks? Absolutely it should. But there's a huge difference in the message conveyed to readers when we write about motives and when we write about effects...Saying (for instance, that California Attorney General Dan) Lundgren discussed religion (in kicking off his gubernatorial campaign) because he seeks to assure a particular political outcome portrays him as if his motives are purely cynical. It suggests he is a politician who will say whatever he has to say in order to win a particular bloc of votes."

It is possible to provide equally valid political analysis by describing the effects of his speech, for example, to explain that his remarks addressed concerns that are on the minds of many on the religious right and also that raise fears among those on the secular left (without impugning rather speculatively at that his motives). By discussing effects rather than motives, political writing can avoid cynicism yet maintain its analytical integrity."

"While writing about motives which often are unknowable is dubious journalism at best, writing about effects, political consequences and policy impacts gives readers information they actually can use."

"When Jane Harmon kicked off her campaign for Governor recently, she was surrounded by women officials and political figures. It took her less than two and a half minutes to mention her pro-choice stance on abortion. And although her primary emphasis was on education, she also mentioned her support for prison construction, three strikes laws, and the death penalty. Some stories suggested that all of this staging was driven by polling and political strategy, rendering Harmon as a smooth operator. Others explained the political impact of the visual impression she made for TV cameras raised concrete questions about her proposals and put her remarks in a broad political context. One approach was cynical, the other is analytical.

"When we find ourselves writing a story that suggests a politician is driven by only one motive, a warning bell should go off. Is this too simplistic? Can I fairly suggest that this politician's self interest is in conflict with the public interest? Is it possible that this person could be doing the right thing and serving his personal ambition at the same time? Will the person I'm writing about recognize himself in my article?...

"As opposed to cynicism, we ought to be infused with a powerful sense of skepticism. We must doubt, question, and challenge assertions and generally accepted conclusions. We ought to understand that politicians come in two types -- those who want primarily to do good, and those who want to do well. The important point is that we should begin with the belief that there are politicians who want to do good, but on behalf of our readers we have a duty to dig and to doubt until we can be sure.

"'Skepticism,' Oscar Wilde said, 'is the beginning of faith.' But in what beyond our individual religious outlooks do we journalists have faith? ... Fundamentally, we journalists believe in this rather Jeffersonian ideal that if we unearth the facts and give people in a free society the information they need, democracy will flourish...

"The core of cynicism is mistrust. The core of skepticism is doubt. When we report and write as if we believe in nothing, as if we see through everything, as if we are certain that any action, however noble, can be reduced to some strategic intent, we aggravate public disengagement from the political process and from the press itself.

"... It is possible both to believe in representative democracy and to approach politicians and policymakers with a healthy measure of doubt. We can work from this world view, but not if we are infected with cynicism, not if we practice carping wiseacre journalism or assume that everyone in public life is a liar, a schemer or a dunce."

Veteran political writer John Mashek, who moderated the discussion that followed, asked National Public Radio White House correspondent Mara Liasson whether peer pressure and pack mentality play something of a role in promoting the view at the White House that they're just a bunch of cynics working in the Administration over there?"

Mara Liasson: "There's a lot about covering the White House that would make any skeptic a cynic. There is (also) plenty of what you could characterize as cynical comments that journalists make to each other hanging around waiting for a briefing, or chatting. (But) I would say that for the most part by the time the stuff gets on the air or in print, most of the cynicism which I think is a pretty normal, healthy, human emotion is pushed to one side.

"I certainly have said a heck of a lot more cynical things to my colleagues than I have ever said on the air, and I hope that continues....

"But when you're covering a scandal instead of policy, it's even harder to make sure you're not cynical because [you can't] talk about the policy implications of one initiative or another on people's lives. It's all about who do you believe? The President or his accusers.

"One of the problems with covering this particular scandal is that, especially when you're a Washington reporter, you're talking to people inside and outside of the White House every day that I would, I don't know if my colleagues would agree, but I would say 99 percent of them do not believe the President. Whether or not they're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. ...Whatever stand they decide to take publicly, the vast majority of sources that we talk to every day do not believe the President.

"Now the majority of Americans don't either, and they've told pollsters that. But that's also something that makes it more difficult to maintain healthy skepticism instead of cynicism.

"The other thing is when we get the explanation at the White House that they can't give us information about Monica Lewinsky's comings and goings because the whole matter is under investigation. And then when it suits their purposes we get a big document about Kathleen Willey's comings and goings and her correspondence with the President. Those are things that will try any skeptic.

"I think it's possible to report on those things and to report about how slow the White House usually is at releasing information, and also point out how speedily it comes out when it suits their purposes, and still not cross the line into cynicism.

"The last comment I want to make is about the President's Africa trip, which I actually think has been getting a lot more coverage and a lot more fair coverage than I think the White House even ever had hoped for. ...

"I don't think this has seeped into what I call the mainstream press coverage, but I have heard plenty of pundits on television say that this trip, and the fact that the delegation is chock full of African American businessmen and leaders and members of Congress, is somehow a cynical attempt by the President to shore up his base in the black community, which I think is wrong. I went with him to South America and the trip was chock full of Hispanic Americans. ... That's another example of some pretty egregious cynicism."

John Mashek: "Sam, does the adversarial relationship between the press and the government, which seems to be becoming a lot more aggressive in recent years, play a part in at least the public's perception of cynicism? ..."

Sam Fulwood, congressional reporter for the Los Angeles Times: "...There is what I would call a sort of a clubbiness that exists with those of us who are actually practicing journalism in the political circles that the public doesn't understand but they on occasion get a glimpse of. That clubbiness sort of breeds a level of distrust as to say are we really watching what's going on or are we in some way or another a participant in what's going on?

"...When you watch the chat shows, when you watch spectacles such as the Gridiron Club, when you watch the relationships between journalists and politicians when they carry on with each other, it suggests I think to a person who doesn't know or isn't on a more intimate relationship with political figures as the media is, that these guys, these gals, can't be as objective as they'd like for us to believe. They really aren't the watchdogs that they would want us to believe that they are.

"Which leads to something that kept coming up in my mind as I read Phil's paper which is... arrogance. I think there is a perception in the larger America that everybody connected with the political process, be it lawmaker or those of us who watch lawmakers, are pretty arrogant. We know what's best. We will tell you what we need to know. If we don't tell you that, you don't need to know it. "All the news that is fit to print" sort of mentality. I think the public sort of has a sense that somehow or another there is information they need to know they're not getting, and that breeds this sort of sense of doubt and question about what we do."

John Mashek: "Gerry Seib, is the lower rating of the press in public opinion polls due in part to this real or imagined cynicism, and what impact do you think that's having on public institutions?"

Gerry Seib, Washington Deputy Bureau Chief and columnist for the Wall Street Journal: "...I think ... that's really the most important question because it kind of gets to where we live. My fear is and my suspicion is that the answer is yes. If you think about cynicism as defined by Phil, ... it is essentially a message from us to our readers and listeners and viewers that all institutions are to be disbelieved on their face. Well, all institutions, come to think of it, includes the press. There's a certain fouling of our own nest here. I mean what we're telling people, at least implicitly and sometimes explicitly, is you can't believe anybody and you should sneer at whatever is sold to you as the truth. That includes what we pass on and sell to people as the truth ultimately, and that's what we have to sell. However we market our commodity, what we have to sell is information and what we at least hope is the truth. If we've implicitly or explicitly told people don't believe any established institutions, we've told them don't believe us at some level.

"I do think the key in Phil's paper and the notion that we have to keep in mind is the difference between skepticism and cynicism. ... Take as an example writing about Dick Gephardt's views on trade, what he calls fair trade. It is now accepted that if you write about that you have to say he's saying and doing those things because he's kow-towing to the unions who provide him money and he hopes propel him into the White House. You have to accept that.

"Can you assume that perhaps he believes what he's saying about trade? To do that is to be accused of being gullible, to borrow another word from Phil's paper. ... I'm perfectly prepared to believe that he doesn't believe any of it, and I think that's a perfectly good reason to be skeptical about it, but to be cynical about it does not even allow you to take into account ... the possibility that he might be saying those things about trade because he believes them.

"Similarly, Steve Forbes is going to get a lot of attention because he's campaigning much more as a social issues conservative now than when he ran for President last time in 1996, and particularly on abortion, a subject he most obviously did not want to talk about in '96 and is most eager to talk about now. You have to, by the conventional wisdom standards of Washington journalism, assume he's doing that because it's a cynical ploy to get votes from the religious right and the Republican party.

"Is it possible he's saying what he really believes? I think you have to at least entertain that possibility. But again, to do that right now is to be accused of being hopelessly gullible. That scares me a little bit...."

John Mashek: "Kathleen Hall Jamieson refers to the fact that the dwelling on strategy, and I could add personality, over substance is also playing a role in what leads to a lot of cynicism. Fair criticism or not?"

Sam Fulwood: "Personality helps make for, to borrow another word that Phil used, framing. What we do is tell stories. There has to be a narrative line. To be able to develop a beginning, a middle and a conclusion, even if ... those things are not clearly delineated, one of the easiest ways to do that is to go straight for personality. It works in terms of being able to couch and frame a story.

"I don't know that we communicate that to the public as the reason why personality has really been elevated above policy. It's hard to have a beginning and middle and end in 15 inches of a policy story."

Mara Liasson: "I think that Phil tried to lay out a way to tell people about strategy, which is important, but also not to make it into just a performance. That strategy is all it is...

"I don't know how many years ago it was that no major paper had a lobbying beat, but I think almost everybody does now, and I think that's good, to kind of lift the curtain and explain what goes on behind the scenes in terms of interest groups in Washington.

"The same thing is true with the press. Now almost everyone has someone who covers the press as a beat. ... But I think that's all good. I think the more information you can give the public about how every institution in America works the better, but I think at the same time, what would be a real tragedy is if we neglected the policy."

Phil Trounstine: "I think Jamieson makes a real contribution in sort of warning us against the purely strategic frame. But I think as a working political writer, it seems to me that we need to be able to write about strategy and tactics in a way that is useful....

"You could write about Gephardt and explain the effect of his taking those positions in the political context; the effect of Forbes taking the positions that he does without trying to get inside his head and say these are his motives for doing it.

"... Jamieson is warning against strategic political reporting, but I think what she fails to see, and I think that's where working political writers can go with this is, if we make that distinction, if we write about what the effect of the thing is rather than the motivation... Sometimes we have all the reporting done and we can say this is why this is being done... .

Gerry Seib: "The key word in what you just said is reporting. A lot of this stuff happens because it's easier. It's easier to just write that this is why they're doing it and it's harder to do the reporting that takes any of the other approaches we've talked about. That's what worries me the most. It's not just cynicism, it's laziness sometimes."

Mara Liasson: "Or to try to tackle something that's complicated. Two things can be true at the same time. The fact is the President planned this trip long ago, he does kind of want to put Africa, to shine a spotlight on it that only the President of the United States can do. At the same time, it comes at an opportune moment that might also provide him some relief from his political troubles."

Audience Question: "Mara, 99 percent of your colleagues in the White House don't believe Clinton. What does that mean? Is that cynical? Is that skeptical? And does it affect the reporting?"

"There was a major health story that broke through some places but not everywhere related to [the] Kennedy/Kassebaum [bill], and how this is not working. It's a huge blockbuster story for health and it affects so many households. We can't get the Washington Post to pay attention. The reason is, they don't have a health reporter. Their health reporter is now assigned to the scandal.

"... I wonder whether the panel could talk about resource decisions inside your newsroom as they relate to covering the scandal versus covering other issues, and whether the proportionality of the coverage affects cynicism with the public and perhaps the opinion of the public about your profession."

Gerry Seib: "...How this is all affecting cynicism about the press, I don't know. I think it's too early to answer that question, frankly. I think the public tends to have a cooler head than we do in most cases, and that's all to the good. I think they'll make their decisions about how serious this was over time and then they will relate that back to the decisions we make every day about how important we think it is in the heat of the moment, and then they'll judge us. ...

"In terms of resource decisions... In my shop at least we've tried to keep our heads about us. And one of the things that we've done is, for example, tried to make sure we had one White House reporter who was not doing all Monica all the time, precisely for the reason that you articulate. ..."

Sam Fulwood: "There are choices being made, and given our efforts to sort of grab the eye of the reader on any particular day, a press conference about policy, it's a sad fact, will never stand up against a photo op on Ken Starr or Lewinsky or Willey or something like that in this sort of scandal plagued season. But there are still policy stories that get into the Washington Post and every other newspaper and on television. It's just not given the same kind of prominence, I think for largely commercial reasons.

"People in the business believe that the public wants to know the next turn of the screw, and we're giving it to them until we are convinced that they don't want it anymore."

Audience comment: "I sometimes think that the reason we come across as cynical or arrogant is that we have brighter reporters these days who can write better and have greater zing to their copy.

"But it seems to me that we shouldn't take all the blame here for creating cynicism. We're living in an age of cynicism. If you're not going to be cynical there have to be certain realities, certain facts, certain truths that you believe in..."

Audience Question: "I'm the communications director for the National Parks and Conservation Association...

"This week we've been working on calling editors to let them know about some really serious anti-park riders that have been attached to the supplemental appropriations bill .... 99 percent of the editors who we've talked to this week, and we've talked to a lot, don't even know there's a supplemental appropriations bill with disaster relief for the Northeast and for the El Nino flood victims and that that money is in jeopardy because of this junk that's being added. ... How are those decisions made about what's important for the public to hear?"

Phil Trounstine: "Let me say, I don't think the concentration of media attention on the Clinton/Lewinsky story, is a function of cynicism.

"...Really, the public has a basically cynical position on this issue which is, They all do it. Partly why the public is not interested is their cynicism. They sort of say what's new here? It's just another politician screwing around. ... In fact the media is sort of taking an anti-cynical view here which is this issue matters a lot. Maybe their anti-cynicism in this case is driven by a whole series of other forces here -- I'm not exactly sure what it is that's driving it. ... But I really don't believe that it's fundamentally a problem of cynicism."

 [top]