Session: Forces That Shape OurNational Values
11
Does the press shape or reflect national values?
Hasso Hering
editor,
Albany (Ore.) Democrat Herald;
daily radio and television
commentator
No question is easier to answer and no answer less open to proof.
Yes, the press does not operate in a vacuum. We write and edit
based on what we know and how we feel—which are greatly
influenced by the social environment in which we live.
Yes, our communities work partly based on the exchange of news
and information—which the press makes possible on a large scale.
There are obvious differences in coverage between the print and
electronic media. There are differences among the players in the
printed press, from big metropolitan dailies to little country weeklies.
Does the Press
Shape
or Reflect
National Values?
Yet, two weeks ago, the Oregon press reported the first state
execution in 34 years. Coverage was straightforward, but implied the
murderer deserved what he got. Editorial opinion was about the same.
Because 70 to 80 percent of Oregon voters support the death
penalty, we can assume this coverage brought widespread satisfaction.
It reflected majority values.
At the same time, the majority Ofjournalists are inclined to be
liberals. And liberals generally hold that the death penalty is wrong.
With natural resource issues, however, the media often reflect the
prevailing public view when they should be raising questions and
digging up facts to help the public find more reasonable answers.
The federal landholdings in the Pacific Northwest really hit the
wires in the 1980s, when environmentalists started winning injunctions
barring federal timber sales. Their tool was the northern spotted owl.
No one questioned owl counts made by biologists who held up a
mouse on a limb and hooted. No one mentioned the sightings that
countered the theory the owl’s only habitat is old-growth forests. No
one mentioned that a third of Oregon's land has old-growth characteris-
tics and more than half already is designated as wilderness or set aside.
Aerial photos presented images of a timber Armageddon. No on-
site pictures presented what in reality was an entirely different view.
With a near absence of factual coverage—exacerbated by near
ignorance of modern resource industries—the media left the field wide
open for decisions made on the basis of feelings and emotions alone.
The same tone has been evident in news coverage of the “timber
rider” Congress passed in 1995 and in stories about the Superfund. Any
change is viewed as an automatic relaxation or refutation of some of
our most important environmental laws. Few media question how these
laws work or how much they’ve cost, relative to the benefits produced.
With their research, data bases, Cooperative Extension Service
and agents, state universities can help keep the press balanced.
But they cannot be shy. And they must not couch science in terms
so guarded and tentative that no one thinks it’s news—much less
understands it.