I think that Nicholas Kristof is asking the wrong questions in his New York Times column about how journalists can “fight, not spread fear and lies”. For example this:
Solutions are complicated, for there may well be a public interest in seeing purloined material; if Trump’s tax returns showed up in my mailbox, I would report on them even if I thought that China had stolen them and was using me to undermine the White House. Likewise, we do have to cover what a president says, even if it’s false, bigoted or demagogic — but I think we can try harder to make crystal clear the efforts at manipulating the public.
I don’t believe that one journalist in 1,000 would be reluctant to publish damaging information about Trump whatever its provenance. The more relevant hypothetical is if information about Obama that would have destroyed his presidency showed up in his mailbox would he have published it? Or would he have found scruples about its provenance that overrode the public’s right to know?
The reason that the public’s esteem for journalists and journalism has plummeted to near-Congressional levels of distrust over the period of the last 40 years isn’t because of Trump or, more precisely, isn’t just because of Trump. It’s because it has become obvious that journalists aren’t pursuing the truth regardless of where it takes them but turning their sights on oppo research against people of whom they disapprove.
It isn’t new. Journalists covered for Franklin Roosevelt for decades despite knowing of his marital infidelities and other weaknesses, going so far as to de-emphasize the hiding in plain sight reality that he was ridden to a wheelchair. They had hated Nixon for decades before he became president and once he became president the unfavorable media coverage he received was torrential. Were they against him because he was a bad guy or did he become a bad guy because of their hatred? Probably some of both.
Since then it has become increasingly the case that it’s open season, not just on presidents which would be fine, but on Republican presidents which is merely political activism. The net outcome of decades of partisan political activism by the press has been a concurrent decline in public esteem on the part of the press and giving a pass to someone possessed of as many qualities that in the past would have been disqualifying as Trump.
Not only is fairness good journalistic ethics; it means people are more likely to believe you.
In conclusion the way for journalists to regain public confidence is not merely by being willing to fight the lies of those you hate. That isn’t nearly enough. You’ve got to be willing to fight the lies of those you like as well.
Lies of omission. Yes, it certainly included FDR, and Kennedy. So it predates my lifetime. It now taints reporting on other natural tensions: Muslims vs Christians, immigrants vs American workers, or even Saudi Arabia vs the Russians or Chinese. The list is extensive. Was there ever a time when journalism was straight and ethical, and not just an exercise in selling ad space and dabbling in advocacy?
There was a time when they had convinced people that was the case. The Internet and every person holding a video camera 100% of the time has made that impossible to maintain just as it has trust in politicians, priests, lawyers, and physicians.
Now the only way to convince people that you’re fair and unbiased is to be fair and unbiased, something I realize is a horrible imposition.
I didn’t point it out in the body of my piece but Mr. Kristof’s statements about the “caravan” are a fine bit of propaganda. That they are “refugees” is pretty unlikely (only a minority of applicants are actually refugees). As I’ve pointed out before their demographics do not match those of actual refugees. And the Mexican authorities have informed the U. S. authorities that the proportion of them who are are criminals is higher than would be expected from a random sample of the populations of their countries of origin.
I think that Mr. Kristof’s heart is in the right place but if he wants to fight lies he should start with himself. Sympathy is no excuse for bending the truth.
“I don’t believe that one journalist in 1,000 would be reluctant to publish damaging information about Trump whatever its provenance.”
I dont even remotely believe this. The Steele dossier was floated around for quite a while and no one wanted to publish it because of provenance issues. Right wing folks have been sending made up stories to the MSM trying to get them to publish so they could demonstrate fake news.
What you ignore here is the sheer volume of lies, not spin but incredibly easily verifiable lies, being put out by Trump. The think is that his supporters believe he that he never lies. I have had them tell me that. Covering his lies doesn’t actually do anything. It (backfire effect) just makes his supporters dig in and confirms what his opponents believe. Trump makes it almost impossible to be covered by journalists in any kind of meaningful way.
The press loved LBJ? Really? The number one ongoing story of the 90s? The Clinton/Lewinsky affair going to impeachment. They covered all of the daily leaks let out there by Starr and his staff (remember Kavanaugh?)
Have you ever watched one of the Trump rallies when he goes after the press? Ever had thousands of angry people turn on you? At this point it may well be personal for some of the press. Also, they are always going to be more likely to go with stories that get more views. Still, let’s remember who is setting the tone here.
Finally, there is a right wing press. It’s sins are at least if not more egregious that those on the left. (Remember the guy promoting the Marc Rich story was the same guy claiming our subways are filled with gay people carrying pink guns killing people or abducting kids and forcing them to be gay. Yup, they carrie that story on right wing TV. Or look at any of the OKeefe stories.)
Steve
Yes, really. Do your research. Check out the phone calls between Johnson and Katherine Graham. Johnson had an extremely cordial relationship with the press. The Pentagon Papers, which documented how he had systematically lied to the country for years, did not come out until after he had left office.
I think you have a very rosy view of the press.
And you’ve dodged my point. Do you think if the NYT had disastrously damaging information about Obama they would have printed it? I don’t think there’s a chance they would have.
The problems with the Steele dossier weren’t limited to provenance. The graver problem was veracity, something that still has yet to be established.
Look, I think that Trump lives in a fantasy world and is not particularly well-informed. The NYT and WaPo have done themselves little good by running daily frontpage editorials against him. But they did themselves in by light treatment of Democratic presidents and tough treatment of Republicans. Once you’ve lost a reputation for reliability it’s hard to get it back.
Thanks for the humorous rant, steve. As noted, Trump has plenty of shortcomings, but media bias substantially predates him, and the amps were turned up to 11 since his election. And if you want to talk about lies, go to any of those fact check sites and look up Clinton – either of them – or Obama. Lean in close, steve, I’ve got a secret for you: politicians lie.
I know you are obligated as part of the Trump cult to defend everything he does, but doesn’t it hurt to have to give up your self respect? Of course politicians lie. This is acknowledged in every discussion about this issue. Obama lied, Clinton lied, Bush lied, Reagan lied. They all do. The difference is that no president has ever lied on the same scale and so obviously as has Trump and so frequently. It started well before the election, but I think many people thought it would be toned down after he was elected. Nope, started up right on his first days. He had more people at his inaugural than anyone else and won by a bigger margin than anyone else don’t you know?
Do you guys just turn stupid after you start supporting Trump or do you have some massive memory wipe?
Steve
I agree there are major problems with journalism, as currently practiced, in the US. I can’t really speak to earlier times.
But today it’s pretty easy to see if you compare journalists and “news” media in other countries compared to the US. I consume a lot of foreign media, the divide is huge and stark.
Journalism in the US is largely failing on an objective basis. There are too many examples to list. The most recent I can think of is Trump’s comment about shooting migrants at the border who throw rocks. What followed was some of the worst “reporting” I’ve seen recently, that, to my mind, deliberately played up fears that this action was a serious possibility. But, like much of Trump’s tweets and remarks, it was just plain stupid, with no basis in reality. It’s a case where it wasn’t exactly difficult to learn some relevant facts – like the actual legal restrictions on the use of force, the fact that only a tiny minority of US forces at the border had any weapons, how types of units deployed, etc. All of that would have informed journalists who were interested in the truth that this was merely a dumb, outrageous remark by the President and not any kind of serious threat, but the reporting, especially the initial reporting, did not reflect that.
This pattern repeats every news cycle.
This isn’t rocket science – Journalism is a lot like what I used to do in the intelligence world, which is to report the facts and then use research and analysis to get to the actual truth. US journalism as a whole is doing very little of the latter.
I’d like to point out one major difference between the Obama presidency and that of Trump. Every detail, every press query, every speech, every opinion expressed, cufflink, wardrobe chosen, photograph released under Obama was crafted and professionally rehearsed. Smart? Yes. Taken to an extreme though it begins to seem like “The Truman Show”. Did the press love Obama? The press that were allowed access certainly did. Others observed this and behaved appropriately or were dismissed from The theatre of his Presidency.
I don’t have to tell you Trump is an entirely different animal. Says what he wants, adlibs speeches. Fights the press and nearly everyone else. Lies, lies about lying, unabashed. Like P.T. Barnham, everything is the biggest or best ever. Or sometimes the worst ever. The press may hate him, but he could never have won the primary in 2016 without their constant and free coverage of every startling comment he made.
So could it be said that both Presidents used the press to their own advantage, in their own way, and the press, watching the ratings instead of the truth, went along with it?
The press is now in the entertainment business, if you want objective truths, feel free to make up your own, everyone else does.