Who watches the watchman?

It’s the age-old question.

If you give the power to someone to protect your interests, how can you be certain they’re always looking out for you? How can you be sure they’re never tempted to pursue their own agenda that may run counter to your best interests?    

In essence, who or what keeps the watchman honest?

The founders of this nation clearly wrestled with that issue. They didn’t trust government and politicians to not become wholly self-serving and immune from oversight. 

That’s why they put special emphasis on protecting freedom of the press. The press was seen as an essential way to insure that elected officials and bureaucrats would be held accountable by someone other than themselves. In other words, a free and independent press would be our watchman, exposing dirty dealings, corruption, and hold those responsible up to public scrutiny. 

Good idea.  Well, good as long as the press itself was honest. And independent. 

It didn’t take long for that idea to fall apart. Greed and the lust for power – especially by the media barons of the day to manipulate public opinion and public policy – took their toll.  Impartiality and “honest reporting” swiftly went out the window as a result. 

Sensationalism sold better than dry news.  Reporters and editors got the message.  The more outrageous – and titillating – the stories, the more papers they sold and the more readers they got.  More readers meant more money; more readers also meant more power.

The most powerful media empires could and did drag America into wars. They could make or break politicians. They could destroy reputations.  They could promote causes that enriched their friends, while damaging their enemies and rivals. They had and wielded enormous power.  

There was practically nothing anybody could do to stop them. Any attempt to stop their most egregious excesses was dismissed as an attack on “freedom of the press,”  protected by the Constitution.  They claimed they had a Constitutional right to do or say whatever they wanted whenever they were challenged.  With rare exceptions, courts backed them up. 

With this power they became the self-appointed guardians of “the truth.” Which was whatever they decided was “the truth” at the moment, not necessarily what was factual or proven.

The case of Times v. Sullivan in 1964 further limited the ability to hold the press accountable for what they published, particularly when they attacked a “public figure.” Because of that case, their victims now had to prove the publisher or writer engaged is a reckless disregard of the facts and with malice aforethought (the intention to cause harm).

Neither is easy to prove conclusively. Publishers and writers claimed they didn’t know what they published wasn’t true at the time – they were simply reporting the news based on the information available at the time. 

It was an easy way to get around accountability for publishing false and often defamatory stories. They didn’t know if the details were false because they were just reporting what they’d been told by someone else.  And of course they couldn’t reveal who that source was for verification because the Constitution protected them. 

As to proving malice aforethought, how can anyone prove what anyone else is thinking? 

Even if they were compelled to issue a correction, well, so what? The correction typically ran in the least conspicuous area of their paper.  The false charge may have been on the front page with a 24pt. headline; the correction would be buried in mousetype far away.

Meanwhile the damage had already been done. Which was what they intended.   

They had virtual immunity from the consequences of their actions.  This bred even more arrogance on their part.  As everyone knows, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it did.         

It shouldn’t surprise anyone then that the media – the new collective noun for “the press” in all its forms – has devolved even more today.  They don’t even bother to pretend they are impartial anymore.  If anything, they revel in their bias; they promote it with pride.

They intentionally omit key facts. They advance conspiracy theories and rumors based on unnamed sources and present these as “facts.” They taint reporting with sly innuendos and sarcasm.  They blatantly lie at times, knowing that even if they’re caught most people will never learn it was a lie – or even remember it was disproven – because of the flood of news in a 24-hour news cycle.   

As far as independence and integrity in reporting, that ship has sailed as well.  More and more we see a false claim repeated almost verbatim across supposedly competing media outlets, often citing each other as “proof.” Once the false claim is launched, it’s considered validated by repetition. If the NYT reported it, and then The Washington Post, no need to investigate further.

Some say this is just sloppy journalism – laziness on the part of reporters.  But it’s more than that; it’s an intentional effort not to report real news that’s been thoroughly vetted, but to shape the “news” to manipulate public opinion. It’s not “all the news that’s fit to print” (or publish), but only the news designed to advance a particular narrative, much as the earlier press barons did.  

In that way, it’s not something entirely new. The media has always been open to corruption and bias to a greater or lesser degree because stories are written and edited by humans. The very act of writing and editing introduces subjectivity into every story. It’s inescapable. 

That alone raises the question whether the media should be considered an impartial and honest watchman. It’s not proven it deserves that role, especially today.  As it becomes more pervasive more of its flaws in judgement and integrity are surfacing.

Which brings us to the key issue: Who should be empowered to watch over the watchman when it appears the watchman can no longer be trusted to perform its duty honestly?

That should keep us all awake at night.