Recently, Donald Trump has been massaging the lizard brains of the birther base of the GOP by telling anyone who will listen that Obama was not born in the United States, despite conclusive proof to the contrary. That birtherism has led to Trump's newfound prominence is a perfect example of how the media can be manipulated into spreading misinformation. Last week, CNN showed just how, with a segment responding to Trump last Friday:
CNN got in on the action Friday afternoon with a little segment that lets "you decide" whether Trump's rants are valid or not, treating a point of fact as though it were theory."Donald Trump says Obama wasn't born here," CNN anchor Deborah Feyerick says, in a teaser for the segment. "We'll show you the evidence, and let you decide."
A little later, Feyerick introduces the segment by crediting Trump with "stirring controversy for reigniting the debate" about whether Obama is natural born citizen of the United States. Then, after airing audio of an interview Trump did with the network, where he rehashes the birther conspiracy's usual points, Feyerick promises that reporter Brian Todd "is breaking down fact and fiction in the birther debate."
I think it's obvious here how an ideological adherence to partisan balance -- all claims by all parties must be treated as equally plausible, even when they are not -- promotes a false claim. As with what NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen calls "regression to a phony mean," this is about "self-protection," showing that the journalist is an isolated, objective voice, insulated from the pressures of deception from either side. But in addition to simply protecting themselves, what CNN is doing above is trying to trick the audience into believing it's actually doing journalism.
The birther thing is beyond settled -- that's what makes Trumps' claims, and their ongoing persistence in the GOP -- so ridiculous. But by playing up the idea that there's still any doubt about whether the president was born in the U.S., CNN gets to give itself credit for "getting to the facts" about a "debate" when the facts are neither hard to uncover nor difficult to understand, and one side of the debate consists of people pretending the facts don't exist. Treating both claims with balance allows pretend journalism to take place, all while adding legitimacy to claims that should be treated as thoroughly discredited. This act of self-promotion helps mislead CNN's audience even as it attempts to burnish the reputations of the people involved as serious journalists you can trust.
Then of course, there's the basic market incentive:
CNN's just riding the birther wave, man.
