As a Journalist, One Must Remain Critical and Unbiased at All Times

The mores of a journalist must remain as they have since the innovation of modern democracy.
One must remain discerning of all policies in regards to their legality and effectiveness, and never allow political biases to permit idiosyncratic credit at any time.

Since the primary role of a journalist is to disseminate uncensored information throughout the general public, which either defines or controls the ruling class in democratic theory, then prevalence of the printed word under the legal protections from the First Amendment of the United States' constitution has contributed to the longevity of the American rule of law, thus far... Thus far.

Within a four-year period immediately following the 9/11 attacks, these established mores of American journalism were especially threatened when many broadcasting institutions conformed under the reactionary group-think of the general public. Many of the policies and motives of the Bush administration went unchallenged, and it had seemed frighteningly plausible to me that the degree of social control, which brazenly frowned upon questioning authority and engaging in civil disobedience during any declared state of emergency, might have degraded from informal to formal if said policies weren't so quickly disastrous . Two major cultural myths had been assumed by a large percentage of the American population during this time:

• Similar or even more devastating terrorist attacks could occur again at any moment, so there isn't much time to spare in traditional fact-checking of urgent policies, for inaction may prove more disastrous than the possible incompetence of said policies.
• Lincoln's grave warning, “A house divided will not stand,” is as much the lesson for today's crisis as it was a century and a half ago. Any obvious dissent or disagreement will only embolden the enemy as a sign of weakness and failure, so anyone who is unsupportive of the dominant party-line impedes our success.

Half a decade later, two sobering facts have now been realized by a significant majority; several years have passed since 9/11 with no further large-scale attacks occurring upon American soil, and American troops have been embedded indefinitely in Iraq under false pretenses, suffering from fruitless executive orders, and wondering whether the presidential call-to-arms against Saddam Hussein had been motivated more by profit than prophesy.

Whatever motivated the Bush Administration to divert attention from Bin Laden to Hussein, it is clear now that they were determined to occupy Iraq, despite astronomical evidence from politically neutral informants supporting two main conclusions:

• Secular dictators like Saddam Hussein governing muslim-dominated lands were equally despised by extremist Islamic factions such as Al Qaeda.
• Saddam Hussein possessed no means nor the suicidal religious convictions to create the mass destructive weaponry that would have transformed the political doomsayer's smoking gun into a mushroom cloud.

While the case for war was built substantially on dubious claims and erroneous details, investigative journalism took a back seat to partisan punditry, which dominated the headlines and airwaves across America. For example, and by far an isolated incident, in a speech made in September 27, 2002, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts denied any persuasive evidence that Hussein possessed biological or chemical weapons or even interest in transferring such an arsenal to Al Qeada. Eric Boehlert, author of Lapdogs, was quoted in Bill Moyer's documentary, Buying the War, stressing the conclusion that there existed a major imbalance between the reporting of arguments both for and against the once possible, now definitive, invasion of Iraq.

“I calculated in 2002, the Washington Post probably published 1,000 articles and columns about Iraq, in excess of 1,000,000 words, and one of the most famous Democrats in the country (Ted Kennedy) raised questions about the war, and the Washington Post set aside 36 words,” Mr. Boehlert said.

In retrospect, had more journalists defined their patriotic duty by continuing traditions of screening authoritative rhetoric for truth, rather than assuming these words as gospel truth, perhaps ours newspapers and television broadcasts would have interviewed more cautious information gatherers than the usual “expert” party loyalists; those who “shocked and awed” the mainstream audience with repetitive jingo, verbatim, from top to bottom. From Rove to O'Rielly.

Those possessing a basic knowledge of American history are familiar with the socio-political cycle, where a national crisis begets an idealogical polarization among the citizenry, and the foreign elements which aggravate the status quo begets hard-line, “line up or shut up” policies that eventually are turned against the domestic adversaries of the ruling party:

• John Adams' Administration had enacted the Alien and Sedition acts which oppressed Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist dissent more than any lingering tory sentiment.
• Woodrow Wilson's Sedition and Espionage Acts were legislative nails in the coffin for the Progressive Era which imprisoned more socialist activists than German spies during the Great War.
• Senator Joseph McCarthy fanned the flames of a second Red Scare during the 1950's, and hundreds of America's liberal artists and freethinkers found themselves charged with Communist conspiracy.

Judging from the patterns of our past, it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that George W. Bush's HR 6166 had been worded so ambiguously that a rowdy college demonstrator throwing a rock through a Starbuck's window could be technically charged with domestic terrorism if the enacting government were ever so inclined.

Self preservation is the most powerful instinct, and whenever provoked the brain convinces itself that it is better to either immediately fight or flee from the threatening element, than to take the time to understand who your enemy really is, why you are threatened, and could there have been a simple misunderstanding. Consequently, this is why times of trouble not only breed politics of fear, but intellectualism falls out of fashion, and becomes stigmatized as synonymous with weakness.

Because a journalist must understand that there is an idealogical clash between his or her prerequisite disciplines and the motives of a propagandist; to appreciate the principles of journalism is to especially recognize its antithesis:

• To a propagandist, empowerment is the end-all goal, and distorting or censoring facts is its mere process. By default, they function like a socio-systematic parasite.
• A propagandist thrives on negative charismatic authority to glorify himself or his larger affiliation, by stoking the fires of fear throughout the plebeian consciousness that an ambiguous element or enemy exists to destroy them, their significant others, and their cultural values that only the propagandist himself can best define and solve.
• A propagandist will always distract the general public from his own cause of suffering by inflating the majority's illusions of ascribed status through scapegoating one or more powerless minority groups, in order to compensate for their general lack of achieved status.

Typically, anyone who opposes the proposals of an empowered and popular propagandist, or just hesitates to support their immediate enactment, could just as easily find his neck within a noose. A tragic comedy belies the patriot when a nation complies without question and with intolerable impatience for positive results; whatever opposition that may have been originally intended for a foreign threat, will probably cause greater suffering for those domestic who only disagree with its effectiveness.

The most prolific example of effective propaganda is attributed to the German Nationalist Socialist Party, better known as the Nazi regime, and it was blatantly obvious then that the attitude of a propagandist would ironically deem the general welfare of its nation as inconsequential for the survival of an ideology originally designed to support it.

Contrary to all of this, a journalist must realize that his or her literary talents must be restrained from point-of-view; Journalism is one of the only art forms that weakens with subjectivity. Although it is vital to remain contemptuous of hubris and suspicious of all authoritative figures, a journalist must also remain divorced from one's own opinion towards favored policies and leadership while searching for and presenting the facts. For the goal of any reputable journalist is to allow the public to evaluate the very policies and ideas that will greatly affect them through three processes:

• Reveal every concealed and distorted fact to allow the public to weigh the possibilities between reasons of either propagandist motivation or simply bureaucratic inefficiency.
• Stimulate the public in questioning whether the enactment of policies or specific actions of leaders are beneficial for the general welfare of their society or just the acclamation of personal wealth and power.
• Support rational debating by presenting fair arguments from two or more perspectives.

Ultimately, a journalist must believe that the message is far greater than the messenger himself and accept whatever risks in defying those who benefit from an ill-informed and timid citizen, the prototypical symptom of a failing democracy.

During times of crisis, as fear surmounts to unsettling proportions, the propagandist beating the war drums may garner attention under a glorious spotlight at first. However, those brave enough to provide the truth to the gathering populous, popular or not, will be the ones who provide a path of consciousness from despair, self-destruction, or blind rage. In the long run, those who stand for truth will be the true heroes of a democratic order, unsung or not.