Journalistic Truths: Part 1

The purpose of the press is to check government. The freedom of the press framed in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is as a means of holding power accountable. This has been the MO for newspapers for years until the 1980s, really. Then something happened: a president was shot and journalists were, for the first time, seen, not just as people, but as Americans. The ongoing claims of liberal bias have persisted to more or lesser degrees for years, and predates Rush Limbaugh, but nobody would really have known it. The journalist’s position to be oppositional to power fell pray to two of the most human of impulses: 1) style and 2) perceiving statements of fact as personal attacks.

Here’s a traditional journalist’s approach to Bush’s background:

Bush received average grades, likable, more ‘physical’ than ‘mental’ but more ‘social’ than ‘physical’, goes to his father’s ivy league school, joins the national guard, gets out early (without any discharge?) to work on a friend’s campaign, moves to Texas, makes failed run for political office, phones up father’s Washington friends and gets financial backing for an oil exploration company. The company finds nothing, but instead of going bankrupt, it is sold for more than 10 times what it is worth to a Bush I friend and Bush is made CEO. The new company fails and is bought out again. He pulls off an Enron-style accounting maneuver in which he sells a part of the company worth $1,000,000 to itself for $10,000,000, claiming the 9 million difference as profit. The SEC decides not to investigate the company. Bush then leaves the company, receiving more money for his stocks than they are worth. He uses the money to get a minority (less than 10%) stake in the Texas Rangers, but is given decision-making power. He trades Sammy Sosa to the Cubs, and the team tanks. In 1994, he is elected Governor of Texas in a campaign recognized nationally as among the dirtiest in memory.

Here’s a traditional pundit’s or historian’s approach to Bush’s background:

Bush was disinterested in learning, and maintained that throughout his career, including public office when he refused to read reports, but had his people pitch the gist of them in 15 minutes or less, demonstrating a dangerous disregard for the rule of law. He was always seen as a social guy and was fond of giving out nicknames, regardless of whether the recipient wanted one or not. His career has been marked by failures, never succeeding as a business man, consistently bailed out by his father’s wealthy associates, and there is a distinct feel that he was being groomed for elected office despite a shocking lack of ability or background.

And here is what we get:

Bush is a canny politician that has shown shrewd political instincts. Though he may not be the most intelligent candidate for office, he is clearly smart enough to pick intelligent advisors: a hallmark of his hero, Pres. Reagan. He also brings a ‘business mind’ to the White House, and won on a strategy of “Who would you rather bring to a barbecue?”

Of course, none of these backgrounds even goes near his illicit drug use, alcohol abuse, his criminal record, the discrepancies in his military record, or any of the other things that make him unfit to serve as a local Rotary president, let alone POTUS. However, this is an example of what passes for journalism in our current age. As I suggested at the top, there are two things that are most of interest, and number 2 is the distinct weapon of choice. What has been exploited since 1981, for sure, has been the tactic of suggesting that a journalist’s concerns for a political decision or on a president’s judgment is, in fact, a political attack against someone unable to defend himself (in that case, Ronald Reagan—he’s such a kind old man!) or undeserving of such a smear (Bush is a man of faith!). The inability to recognize the difference between political hatchet job—look up any number of Hillary Clinton “biographies”, or better yet, read David Brock’s Blinded by the Right—and good journalism has meant that the reader is unsure of who to believe.

This same problem has infected journalism. We have all heard the cries of budget cuts and inadequate funding for international bureaus, not to mention the scandals of journalists fabricating stories for personal glory at the New York Times, but the truth is that the methodology of journalism has changed. Instead of investigating a story and figuring out what is really going on, we are merely allowing he-said-she-said pseudo-‘balanced’ pieces pass for stories in most media outlets. We have also given up on the importance of discerning the very truth in a story, regardless of the conditions. Remember the CBS Nightly News scandal in 2005 when Dan Rather ran with a story in which they obtained a document (that was verified) that proved that Bush was given special treatment in being let out of the military? The very next day, conservatives (conveniently) had proof that the document was a forgery. The way CBS handled the story became the story, even though the woman who allegedly typed the document stated that she had typed a document at one time that said pretty much what this one said. Huh? What kind of Scooby-Doo world did we fall into? Dan Rather is run out of town when the truth was actually revealed to be true?

There are so many reasons to be pissed at the media today. Bill Moyers, in a recent documentary displayed the tactic the Bush White House used to influence the media in the run-up to war with Iraq. The White House leaks a story to the press. The journalist takes the leak and verifies the leak with a White House official who says “that’s what we’ve heard.” The journalist runs with the story and it appears in the newspaper the same day that the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Defense Secretary, and National Security Advisor all appear on separate morning shows. Inevitably, the journalists bring up the story that was published that morning and each one, to the tee, says “That’s what it says. I can’t believe it, either.” If you are having trouble following along, here’s the straight dope, yo: The White House makes it up and then allow themselves to be the second source. Then they quote the news report as proof that their version of the story is correct!

The media has clearly been manipulated for too long. From Murdoch, to Scaife, to Coors, to Moon, there are too many wealthy muckrakers employing racist, bigoted zealots of hate to mess with our very basic understanding of the democratic process. From now on, read Salon, the Huffington Post, or Alternet.