A Journalist is a Watchdog for Truth, Not a Lapdog for Popular Opinion

Could it be argued that American Media had compromised its traditional role as nonbiased mediators and fact-checkers of the political arena during the post-9/11 years? Certainly. Was this the first of its kind in American history? Hardly.

For those concerned with the democratic ailments of punditry, and the general laziness behind “dictation journalism,” take note of Bill Moyers' video documentary, Buying the War, during the interview of Walter Pincus, a national security journalist of the Washington Post. The segment begins with a foreboding concern for American journalism's declining role as a balancing entity separate from Demagoguery.

“more and more in the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements or critics of the administration, and we've sort of given up on being independent on our own.” Mr. Pincus said.

Mr. Pincus continues to describe a method of fact-checking called, “Truth Squading,” once commonly deployed by journalists of the Washington Post before the Reagan Revolution. The method's purpose was to catch and point out factual errors made by political figures, especially during press conferences.

Mr. Pincus points out that truth squading was frequently used during the first five or six months of President Reagan's first term of office, because he made so many factual errors during his speeches. However, because of overwhelming discouragement from the general public to “disparage” an unusually popular president, truth squading had all but ceased altogether.

It was then that the majority of the press had decided not to risk public disfavor by divorcing themselves from the traditional duties of critical investigation, and pawned the responsibilities over to the political opposition.

“We stopped truth squading every press conference, and we left it then to the Democrats. In other words, it was up to the Democrats to catch people [making factual errors,] not us. We'd then quote both sides.” Mr. Pincus said.

So began the misconception that the balance of truth lies within the opposition of ideas themselves and the ideologues who purport them. But, in truth, debates function best with a mediator in between, and with the lack thereof, there is only theater.

When Bill Moyers asked Mr. Pincus if the decision to bear political opponents solely responsible for sounding the propaganda alarm could still be considered, “objectivity” by many standards, Mr. Pincus concluded his answer by proclaiming that such a process only perpetuates a more idiosyncratic dialogue among pundits.

“You'd call this, 'objectivity' if you think there are only two sides [to an issue] and you're not interested in the facts. The facts are separate from what one side says about the other.” Mr. Pincus said.

One must understand that with every problem comes many theories as to how to solve it. There might exist the best solution, but all current theories could still be wrong.

So, in creating a system where the credibility of one party platform is only scrutinized by its rival, the general public may consequently distrust the vital importance of critical analysis. Since every politician has an agenda to win, his opinion towards his opponent(s) will automatically be suspect and subject to bias, especially to those voters who weren't originally affiliated with his party.

So, no matter how dirty one party may play, if only the opposition were to cry foul, one could still be uncertain if the situation was a matter of fair play or fair calling. This is where I truly believe Journalism is suppose to intervene. Every game, serious or not, requires a set of rules and referees to enforce them.

Never forget that a great journalist would never allow his own opinions, preferences, and beliefs to interfere with his ability to report the facts, but a great journalist would never hesitate to call out lies, distorted facts, inaccurate data, consequences of enacting policies, law breaking, and all-out hubris.

We've seen the damages caused by allowing public opinion, fickle as it is, to transform the nature of Journalism from protectorate of fact to transcriber of rhetoric; the face of news reporting is looking less like Walter Cronkite and more like Sean Hannity. No matter if the spin doctor at work weaves the invisible garment, the journalist who merely fails to report that the Emperor wears no clothes is just as guilty of misinformation.