The myth of responsible journalism

Journalism has always been a sleazy business. 

What we now call “the media” – newspapers, TV, radio, cable networks and now online sites and bloggers – like to wear the mantle of “journalists” as if that’s something of pride, honor and dignity, nonetheless. 

Honestly, they know better.   

Journalism is not now, nor ever was, a bastion of objectivity, integrity or truth.  It’s always been and always will be a field rife with prejudice and manipulation of information. To what end? Well, usually to promote something or someone the reporter and owner believe in, and to disparage or destroy something or someone they don’t like.

Trust me, this isn’t secret information.  Every J-school grad knows this. 

Just as they know that freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.  Or in this day and age, whoever owns or controls the newspaper, TV or radio station, cable network or website. 

Now that the power to publish is within reach of anyone with an Internet connection, including any uninformed nebbish in his mom’s basement with an ax to grind, the concept of “honest” journalism is as realistic as a “virtuous” whore, and about as apt an analogy.

In the never-ending quest for fame, fans and followers, making waves is more important than truth or accuracy.  So just about anything intentionally provocative gets published – right, wrong, vindictive, malicious, whatever.  A slip of the tongue gets blown out of proportion. An innocuous comment is taken out of context. Unverifiable claims are attributed to “unnamed sources.”

Those who create and publish even the most outrageous fabrications and distortions often claim they are exercising their First Amendment right to be a free and unfettered press.    

Reporters and publishers like to imply that the First Amendment gives them special privileges and an exalted position in our society – in effect the Fourth Estate. Most outside the media have been led to believe the First Amendment has something to do with freedom of speech – which it does – and also grants the media extraordinary status – which it doesn’t. 

Here’s the actual text: 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note that the first thing addressed in the First Amendment has to do with religion.  Freedom of speech comes next. And freedom of the press is third. 

The First Amendment does cover a lot of ground rather vaguely. That makes it subject to a lot of interpretation, and parsing of words, as to what the founders meant.  I tend to believe that the founders wanted to restrict Congress from creating laws designed specifically to stifle criticism of the government, government policies, and government officials. 

There’s been a lot of case law since then on what the First Amendment covers in terms of the acceptable scope of free speech and freedom of the press.

Almost none of that has given a pass to the media to publish with a reckless disregard for the facts, or with a predetermined mindset to cause harm. That hasn’t stopped many in the media from doing both, and then trying to use the First Amendment as their get-out-of-jail-free card.       

Quite frankly, members of the today’s media rabble – print, broadcast, or online – don’t hesitate to consider themselves above the law, or to welcome and make heroes of those who break the law. Actually, they always have on both counts.

It’s not surprising since many of them entered journalism as a way to get even with someone or some institution for some real or imagined injustice. That’s the dirty little secret many of them share.  Forget the Hollywood stereotype of the tough but fair journalist doggedly seeking the truth, no matter the personal risk; it’s about exacting revenge for many of them.      

That’s not to say that there aren’t decent, honest folks in journalism today trying to bring critical, accurate information to the public. You just aren’t going to hear much about them. Big headlines, exposés, titillating and shocking stories build careers, so simply reporting the actual facts won’t get you very far.

Unless – as a journalist – you become the story. Then your peers pull out all the stops. 

The media is obsessed with itself to an extent that would be unimaginable in any other profession – presuming of course that you consider such an ethically challenged industry a “profession.”  (I say that at the risk of offending other professions, such as prostitution.)

If ISIS chops off someone’s head that’s bad; but if ISIS chops off a journalist’s head – well that’s much, much worse. The same goes for just about anything. There’s nothing more important to those in the media than what happens to one of their peers. 

It’s clear that I have a bias against modern day “journalists,” most of whom I see as pompous, self-indulgent hacks for whom “objectivity” is a ship that sailed far away long ago. I think most are intellectually lazy and only look for “facts” that support what they already believe. To me they are more interested in self-promotion and appeasing their fans and like-minded peers than reporting uncomfortable truths that compromise their ideology or their “mission.”

It’s not just journalists with a liberal bent; their conservative counterparts are just as bad.  If you believe nbcnews.com, Obama is a modern-day Gulliver, held back from fixing the country by Lilliputian Republicans. If you believe FoxNews.com, Obama is a Marxist dictator running roughshod over the Constitution. Both are false narratives. (No, really … they are.)     

The casualty of all this is reality.  And that really pisses me off. 

It’s small wonder our population is so ignorant; people generally have no idea what’s true and what isn’t anymore. That’s not good for a country that needs an educated and informed populace to pull the levers in voting booths. Otherwise, critical elections devolve into mere popularity contests. 

And then we are doomed as a democracy. 

Part of it is our own fault for relying too much on media sources that do nothing more than present their version of the news that confirms what we want to believe. It’s disingenuous to blame the management of NBC, CNN or Fox for giving their audiences what they want – their business is to sell ads, and you need an audience to attract advertisers.

So what’s to be done? Maybe reporters and publishers need to be held to the same standards as advertisers.  As strange as it sounds, it makes sense, especially since most journalists are now like advertisers these days; both are trying to persuade consumers to buy what they’re selling.

And right now – as bizarre as this seems – advertisers are held to higher standards. 

When advertisers make a claim media outlets and the government can require them to show proof of its validity before it’s allowed to be aired.  If an advertiser misleads and/or defrauds a consumer – whether by omission or commission – they face stiff financial penalties or even jail time.  

Wouldn’t it be better if journalists had to meet the same standards? 

Don’t count on it anytime soon.