Ethics & Issues: History vs. Content Creation
In the hand-wringing that followed last November’s election, amidst all the dissections and analysis, one point that rose out of the political noise for me was the observation that “legacy media” proved far less influential than “social media” in informing and shaping people’s public opinions.
But what really surprised me was how much this paradigm shift paralleled some issues going on in the field of public history.
To start, let me share some excellent analysis by CNN media reporter Brian Stelter. As he deconstructed the erosion of media influence, one trend he pointed to was the difference between news and commentary—a line constantly blurred (and, I would argue, intentionally so by some networks). “Note the big differences between talking and reporting,” Stelter cautioned, “but recognize that both have value.” [emphasis added]
He went on to say:
There are some journalistically rigorous podcasts, including ones produced by CNN, but most podcasters, YouTube streamers and online creators are not journalists per se. They are in a different, news-adjacent business, even when they land interviews with politicians like Donald Trump. They’re not doing the hard work of reporting and vetting information; they’re talking about what others have gathered. But making sense of the news and talking informally and in-depth — three hours at a time, in Joe Rogan’s case — is important work in its own right. Talk show hosts and vloggers have deep connections with media consumers. News producers have a lot to learn from podcast stars.
Stelter’s comments (which you can read in full here) brought me back to a discussion I had last year with a panel of Civil War podcasters. The discussion, which you can watch here, was inspired by a September article in The Atlantic by Arash Azizi, “The Dangerous Rise of the Podcast Historians.” Azizi lamented a high-profile interview Tucker Carlson did with a Holocaust denier who promoted himself as a historian. But just because someone calls himself a historian, Azizi asked, does that make him one? After all, the digital space is full of people creating history-based content. Are they historians? Are they credible?
These were the questions the panel of podcasters and I wrestled with. Joining in the discussion were:
- Jim Hessler of The Battle of Gettysburg Podcast. Jim is a Licensed Battlefield Guide at Gettysburg.
- Kevin Levin of Civil War Memory.
- Darren Rawlings of The American Civil War and U.K. History Podcast. Darren is ECW’s Social Media Manager.
- Joe Ricci of Home Brew History. Joe is historian at the Battle of Franklin Trust.
- Cecily Zander, then ECW’s chief historian.
By the end of the conversation, we all agreed that the lack of formal gatekeepers in much of the digital space meant that we had an ethical obligation to self-police. It’s our responsibility to create accurate, informative content, and we needed to hold ourselves to a high standard.
I wholeheartedly agreed with that conclusion, but I admit, I left the discussion feeling a little dissatisfied by it, too—only because there are still plenty of people out there in cyberspaces creating content and not holding themselves to a high standard. Or else what they think is a high standard really isn’t (because, after all, who’s the gatekeeper to say so?). Or else, worst of all, they are intentionally trying to create wrong, misleading, and/or unfactual content.
Unfortunately, too many audience members don’t know what’s credible or not, and so the danger of falling for charlatans—or even just factually careless content—is very real. Most podcast listeners are looking to be entertained, first and foremost, even if “entertained” means intellectually stimulated.
And this is where I think podcasters do provide an immense service. If I can paraphrase Stelter here, making sense of history and talking informally and in depth is important work in its own right. I don’t know a history person—professional or not—who doesn’t love to armchair quarterback, which is how we engage with the material, test out ideas, and hear other perspectives. For scholars, this happens through academic journals and at academic conferences; for everyone else, this happens on tours, at symposia, and online. People watch videos and listen to podcasts. That’s where front-line history is being consumed—far more so than the traditional venues of print.
Yet those print venues remain invaluable. They are more in-depth. They feature the latest research. They typically have some sort of editorial vetting process. They’re more permanent. That’s where history continues to be systematically chronicled and analyzed.
That’s a far cry from someone who takes a camera phone out of their pocket, shoots a video, posts it online, and portrays themselves as an “expert.”
“Note the big difference,” Stelter cautioned his readers—and I’ll caution mine the same. Writing history books and talking about history books are separate things. Being a historian and being a content creator are separate things. History and commentary are separate things.
All of these things have value, but fact and opinion do remain separate realms. Strong opinions are not the same thing as strong research. It’s important for historians, content creators, and audiences alike to all be up front about what they’re creating and what they’re consuming.
Great summary, Chris. Another term I’ve seen is “popularizer” to describe someone like Jared Diamond. He’s not exactly a charlatan and he can write a bestseller, but not being a trained historian and anthropologist, can overlook and oversimplify to the point of being incorrect. There’s no doubt that popularizers reach a wide audience that may not have otherwise be reached, but they should always be bound by historical facts.
Excellent summary, Chris, on a topic that shows the importance of intellectual “guardrails,” meaning what one claims as fact ideally should be supported by some solid basis in “the record.” That record can be a cite to a historical document, a quote made by the person who you claiming holds a certain belief (and sometimes the quote itself requires context), or some other objective source. The problem, of course, is that podcasters, social media “influencers,” and the like do not (and in fairness, cannot) drop footnotes in supporting their content as they speak it. Which comes back to your point-ethics matter. And ethics apply not just to the speaker, but to the listener.
Chris-I like your organization, your blog, and I agree with most of what is in this article. Given the events in the last week, however, I cannot let your comments about Brian Stelter and misinformation go unaddressed. Charlie Kirk was relentlessly attacked and dehumanized by leftist thugs for literally years. He was deplatformed, assaulted both verbally and physically, censored, canceled, and called every vile name imaginable. His associate Riley Gaines was assaulted in San Francisco by activists and forced to hide until an overwhelming show of police rescued her. Name one time when the legacy media, including CNN and Stelter, defended KIrk and Gaines and their right to be heard. The legacy media is being heard now because some people are getting fired for cheering on Kirk’s death. I think people getting fired for such things is debatable, but what is not debatable is that conservatives have been getting canceled and fired for years for such things as observing that the Covid virus probably came from a lab and that the health authorities were wrong in welcoming massive protests and riots concerning George Floyd, but preventing people like me from visiting my dying mother.
I could go on and on about bias within the so called “expert class” and their hand maidens in the legacy media, but I’ll settle for two examples. When James Hodgkinson tried to eliminate the Republican congressional leadership at a softball practice, the FBI executives the next day concluded that Hodgkinson’s motivation was suicide by cop, not politically motivated hate. So Hodgkinson, a vocal Bernie Sanders supporter, travels half way across the country, makes sure the players on the field were Republicans, shouts “this is for health care” and starts shooting people. Yeah that sounds like suicide by cop to me. The FBI finally withdrew that conclusion out of embarrassment, but not before the wonderful legacy media ran with it. And while they were running with it, anyone who pushed back was guilty of misinformation and not going along with the experts.
When some thug killed little kids praying at Mass in Minnesota, either NBC or ABC claimed that the shooter’s motive was unclear (which wasn’t true) and that Trump’s name was written on his gun. Huh, sounds like a violent MAGA type. Except what was written on the gun was “kill Donald Trump.” I don’t trust the expert class or the legacy media and I have good reason not to trust them.
I find the recent violence, particularly Kirk being killed in front of his family, to be very depressing and disturbing. I have been trying to stay away from social media. I came to this website to get away from all that crap. Again, I respect you and your website, but you did not have to bring Brain Stelter into this.
Stelter had a long history as a reputable journalist covering the journalism business before he became politicized. But that doesn’t make his observation about the role of influencers and the influence of legacy media incorrect. Alas, too many people today take the intellectual shortcut of ignoring the message because they don’t like the messenger.
Like you, I find Kirk’s murder reprehensible. Political violence is a crime against the American people and the Constitution. Isn’t one of the main purposes of a site like ECW to illustrate the dire consequences that result when political dialogue and discussion break down?
I don’t want to get into the weeds on this. I just wish you had not mentioned Brian Stelter. I don’t think you realize how upset some of your readers are about what happened last week. If some right wing nut had publicly executed say, Rachel Maddow, and you posted less than a week later an article quoting with approval Sean Hannity or Jesse Watters and stating that they had once been reputable journalists, I suspect a number of your readers would be upset and they would have good reason to be. That’s all I’m saying. It’s not the end of the world either way.
I getcha, Bill. But I still don’t see what Brian Stelter has to do with the Charlie Kirk situation. I did a quick search online and didn’t see that he’d said anything inflammatory. If people don’t like him just because he’s him, I’ll buy that, but isn’t that the same as dismissing anything Charlie Kirk ever said, good or bad, because he was Charlie Kirk?
That’s cool. I appreciate ECW.
And ECW and I appreciate you!
Quoting Brian Stelter to validate a point was not a good decision and reckless, unless it was to discuss media bias of which he is a poster boy. It only results in legitimizing sycophantic ideologies who want nothing more than to distort, eliminate, or deflect the truth. One does not need to adhere to either political ideology to recognize this. Anyone with rational critical thinking skills would/should know this. His immediate response to the Kirk’s assassinations is all that is needed to substantiate this point. Any statement like that by anyone should trigger a rational desire to investigate and research the facts and truth about such statements. Please do better.
As I just told Bill, Stelter had a long history as a reputable journalist covering the journalism business before he became politicized. But that doesn’t make his observation about the role of influencers and the influence of legacy media incorrect. Alas, too many people today take the intellectual shortcut of ignoring the message because they don’t like the messenger.
I have no idea what Stelter said as an “immediate response to…Kirk’s assassination.” I wrote my first draft of this piece back in NOVEMBER and let it sit for 10 months as I tried to parse things out. After all that time, I still believe his observation about the role of influencers and legacy media remain valid. We scheduled the post ten days ago, well before the Charlie Kirk incident. If Stelter said something in the meantime (and the fact that I don’t know should demonstrate that I’m not particularly a Stelter adherent), that has no relation to this discussion.
So, perhaps before you suggest that I “please do better,” I would in turn suggest that you not make assumptions.
You referenced him so he does indeed become relevant to this post. No assumptions were made. The fact that he is now a politicized ideologue is enough to discredit him as a voice of objective fact and reason. Especially in an ethics and issues series. If he, in the future chooses to come back to objective reporting then by all means reference him. My point is choosing those with integrity and known historical integrity to use as examples and NOT purveyors of factual malpractice. Of those we have no shortage of. If not, there are countless misguided/dishonest/bad individuals who I could cherry pick and find a good thing they have said. I will modify my last sentence – Choose better.
But it seems the connection you’re making–i.e., everything Brian Stelter has ever said is bad because he’s Brian Stelter–is as ideologically based as you claim Stelter himself is. I’ve seen people cherry-pick a whole bunch of Charlie Kirk quotes this past week to either “prove” he was a saint or a terrible human being. Is one set of quotes true and the other made up? Or did he perhaps say ALL of those things, some of which some people agree with and others disagree with? Is it not possible that Stelter, too, makes some valid points and some others that are not?
I think you’re also flawed in your assertion that he was presented here–or that he presented himself in his original essay–as a “voice of objective fact and reason.” I have obviously referenced him here as someone offering an insight into the news business, which is the capacity in which he was acting when he published his original commentary.
If we are being critical of our responses I would take issue with being categorized as possibly taking intellectual shortcuts or making assumptions. That leads to sidelining/trivializing one’s credibility. I think as far as texting will allow us (which is I feel is the worst way to communicate) we will, at this time, have to agree to disagree. It would be much easier to have a conversation such as this in person. In any case I do like robust debate.
I agree with your final points in your 8:03 post, Dale–so there we’ll agree to agree! I appreciate your openness to discussion, even if this is a tough format in which to sometimes engage in debate.
Thanks Chris and I appreciate as well your willingness to engage in discussion with me. The ECW is a wonderful site and I always enjoy the discussion, learning, and debate that it provides. Take care.
These are some excellent observations, and sparked in me the memory of an observation I made nearly two decades ago – that the proliferation of cable TV news networks (which, above all else, had to make money or vanish), along with the death of many newspapers (the greatest tool of democracy) and the rise of social media showed that now many had soapboxes…and this all had proved that it was not necessarily a good thing that there were thousands of new soapboxes now.
The key element, which you mentioned, is being, to quote Stelter “journalistically rigorous” and this has fled the spectrum. I began my career as a journalist and left the profession because it had left me; as many assert, “journalism is dead.” Your points are far greater than Stelter’s words so I don’t mean, in the least, to criticize your piece – the points are entirely valid. But Stelter is amongst the worst of those who are not in the least “journalistically rigorous;” he is enormously bigoted, biased, dishonest, and contemptuous of the values of journalism as well as the values of America. For at least 20 years now the legacy media and cable news networks like CNN (Stelter’s on again, off again employer) and MSNBC have led the way in deciding that they would no longer give Americans the facts, or be a watchdog, but that they would give Americans the opinions they’d damn well better follow – or else. Their second crime is being totally tone deaf and unreflective, for they break every rule of journalism, and them pompously proclaim that those who oppose them are “journalistically rigorous.” They are so corrupt they no longer even realize they are corrupt, and thus the deceitful propaganda they spew – proven to be lies thousands of times over the past two decades – is to their minds, journalism. They rationalize lying because, they state, it’s for a good cause, and once they’ve lied enough, it’s no longer a lie – it’s journalism. And then they wonder, agape, why they are so unpopular and so hated. Well, it’s because they’ve earned it – with Stelter at the forefront.
It is in universities as well, where history professors have decided that Americans cannot, and should not, ever be told the truth again, but instead, should be spoon fed a rewritten version of American history, which suits their current political needs. Funny – this is exactly what Mao Tse Tung proscribed for China. When it didn’t go over too well, he had 100 million murdered in a quarter century.
Let’s Make Truth Great Again – and bring Journalism along with it.
Could you please give an example of a history professor who has suggested that, as you put it, “Americans cannot, and should not, ever be told the truth again, but instead, should be spoon fed a rewritten version of American history, which suits their current political needs”?
Mr. Schafer – I notice you have left out of your examples of poor journalistic practices any cable news networks on the right. Many would say they are equally slanted and are guilty of the same offenses with which you charge CNN and MSNBC. I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.
I’ve lost a large degree of respect for professional historians in the last ten years, and history-buffs in general, as I’ve done some deep dives under the hood of research. I wouldn’t say the trend among podcasters or content creators is anything special because historians who make money are not doing huge deep dives either. Nobody is an expert on battlefields as diverse as Gettysburg to Little Bighorn to the Ardennes. You can pretend to be, though. There’s no money in specialization in history like there is in brushing broad strokes on a lot of topics, you don’t need a podcast to that. I would compare Historians to Christian theologians. One does methodical line-by-line research of primary resources and the other plays the voice of God to create and sell historical narratives for public consumption. How many people are really reading a staff officers obscure letter line by line and really trying to derive what’s being said? Like four people with public works may have skimmed through it and looked for what they wanted to. It doesn’t pay to stew on anything.
#1 Many historians have absolutely outrageous egos that are often stroked but rarely tested. This is why you don’t really have any sort of debates at all on anything, and why topics like the Harvest of Death become taboo or worse. All to protect egos. History is almost entirely a non-confrontational field to its own detriment. Egos are fragile and massive and disagreements are sidestepped to an extreme degree.
#2 Narcissism is way overrepresented in the rank-and-file history lovers. In hindsight, as a young boy you could easily be mistaken as a psychopath for reveling in death and destruction as your average history buff does, and in balking at units taking only 10% loss. Old men who feel the need to interrupt field presentations with their dumb opinions or comments. Everyone waiting for their turn to speak. Reenactors put an exclamation point on the problem. I have no problem with the trade, but it takes some serious narcissistic tendencies to have a gut and wear a full white beard and try to play a young campaigning soldier in a film. Listen to podcasts with any historical advisor of any major war film and you’ll hear the same complaints of entitlement among reenactors. This is why films like the recent Napoleonic one, and better ones like Last of the Mohicans, avoid reenactors and train extras from scratch. It’s a real problem, and I’m not against reenacting regardless of your appearance, I’m against the irreverence to actually freaking try to rep these guys on screen for a wider audience. That’s insane and it distorts the public’s perception of the conflicts.
#3 History buffs are all not necessarily the smartest people. This is a hard pill to swallow, but there’s a definite lack of value on lingering in the finer details of the past. This wouldn’t be problem if we didn’t think we were above average intelligence because we know history. The vast majority of history-lovers I’ve encountered I would assess as below average IQ.
#4 Historians don’t police their own (other professionals). It’s gotten really easy to publish books and a huge amount of stuff out there is subpar, or worse. “Any history is good history” only works with surface-level engagement of the subject matter. An author named Venner publishes a book on the 19th Indiana at Gettysburg. Another guy makes a novel based off it that sells a fair number of copies. The problem is that Venner’s work has a lot of problems, and that’s putting it nicely. Many of his footnotes lead back to nothing related, and his Seventh Tennessee book probably fabricated a quote. Has anyone called him out? Of course not. Historians cheerlead their chosen units like no tomorrow. McClean on Cutler’s brigade at Gettysburg. The late, great Wittenburg on Buford’s “stand” (probably the most egregious cheerleading example). I don’t know why in the world Hessler made another Gettysburg book, I learned precisely nothing from reading it. It shows that history is a business to be *sold* and content creators are selling a lot better than ECW or any author does. We’re a maximum of 10 years out from full-feature films being produced by nobodies so get used to losing even more control over narratives.
Also, pretty wild to quote Steltner of all people.