As stories do, the fate of England and its manager Gareth Southgate in the World Soccer cup and the fitness of President Biden for future office receded from the news after the attempt on Donald Trump’s life. At the time of writing Southgate has resigned and Biden, after resisting pressure to do so has abandoned his reelection bid. The part played by the media in both these stories merit reflection on the human vulnerability of persons in public life and of those involved in reporting on it.
I was annoyed by the way in which the media treated both persons, decent men with large responsibilities in their field. I believed that they did not deserve the massive scrutiny that distracted them from their primary commitments. On reflection however, I was also sympathetic to the people who compose the Media. Their work is demanding. When we see Government, football or media as persons rather than as abstractions or institutions, we recognise that the certainties of our initial judgments are not to be trusted. They fail to recognise complexities that need to be teased out.
In the media coverage of the European Cup, Southgate was heavily criticised for the English team’s poor performances in the Tournament’s early games. Although the team performed well enough to finish first in its section, it laboured as a team and played unattractive football. Despite his good record and clearly enjoying the confidence the players’ confidence, Southgate was blamed for the team’s stodgy play, for his team selection, and for his tactics. Sports journalists criticised him, sought the opinions of former English players of various levels of distinction or notoriety who duly damned the manager and his deficiencies and advocated team changes that later proved to be counterproductive. Their opinions then became the topics of further critical reporting, even as the team won its way into the Cup Final. Social media with its mixture of personal infallibility, sense of entitlement and outrage at disappointment, was fed by and fed the media storm.
Biden’s troubles began with his first debate against Donald Trump. He struggled to find the right words, was hesitant, made mistakes, and was helpless in his attempts to control the debate. These failures focused attention on his intellectual acuity and ability to act as President in a four-year term. After the debate the media focused its reporting on his age, health and suitability as a candidate. Reporters sought and received opinions on all sides of politics, from celebrities, politicians, party donors, doctors and other relatives. They in turn created spot fires that generated further stories.
The effect of the constant and unfailingly negative publicity on both men was to make it difficult for them to focus on their immediate work, and for the public to trust their institutions and leaders. It also made It less likely that people with the capacity and desire to contribute to public life will open themselves and their families to such punishment.
Those consequences argue against media inquisitions of public figures who have become vulnerable. The most common response to this sweeping condemnation is that, for all their occasional excesses, the Media investigations are an essential pillar of democracy. It is the nature of Governments and institutions in general to conceal from the public, not only what would injure the State if it were revealed, but also incompetent and even corrupt behaviour that would embarrass the Party and its representatives. Many reforms of public life have been triggered by a persistent media investigation and publication. They are an essential element of the freedom of speech that is integral to a democratic society.
As a high statement of principle, this is incontrovertible. When it is embodied, say, in the investigative work of Nick McKenzie and Adele Ferguson it is both responsible and admirable. These examples, however, represent long, patient and lonely work played for very high stakes. They fight against the tide. The pile ons directed at Joe Biden and Gareth Southgate, on the other hand, enjoyed a strong tailwind and were directed at easy targets.
It is tempting to blame the journos. Journalists, however, are also human beings. They face great pressures from their outlets to report quickly and tellingly. In their work they compete with thousands of other reporters to find a new angle and with communications departments set on killing stories. To find a celebrity with a public face in football or in politics, and especially one who is fond of his or her own voice, can be the cup that will keep on giving.
'In a world in which reading is a minority activity, reporters will also feel compelled to simplify issues – to frame them as a choice to sack or keep Southgate, for example, and to replace or stay with Biden, without looking at the larger scene and its complexities.'
Journalists also work for media companies whose owners have their own interests. If these are strongly supportive or hostile to Biden’s Democratic Party, reporters are more likely to cover the story in ways consistent with that bias. Reporters thus become actors in the play that they review and also contribute to its failings.
In a world in which reading is a minority activity, reporters will also feel compelled to simplify issues – to frame them as a choice to sack or keep Southgate, for example, and to replace or stay with Biden, without looking at the larger scene and its complexities. To do this would demand considering what Presidents or football managers can and must do, what other institutions will prevent them from doing, and what the resources of nation or team will allow them to do.
Journalists who take the easy path are like vultures. They have an important place in identifying the rotting flesh in public life and disposing of it before it spreads infection. The living and healthy can brush them away as they circle. If they gather in swarms and attack the healthy, however, they become a pest.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.