Reality Matters, Part 1

October 13, 1992, was the day I gave up on mainstream journalism. It was the day I realized that such "journalism," as it is now practiced, is surreal, irrelevant, unconcerned with facts or reality.

That was the day when I first recognized the appalling nonsense of "he said/she said" journalism. Others have described and lamented this phenomenon at great length, and with more clarity and insight than I can muster here. But since your first time is always special, let me tell you about my terrible epiphany of October 13, 1992.

I was watching the vice-presidential debate, which featured the incumbent, Dan Quayle, and the two challengers, Sen. Al Gore and retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale.

A key exchange in the debate involved Quayle's misrepresentation of a passage from Gore's book, Earth in the Balance. In the chapter in question, Gore argued for a new "Marshall Plan" to promote sustainable development in the Third World. Quayle offered a garbled interpretation of this idea and Gore corrected him.

The point here is that the debate got very specific -- with Quayle citing a specific page number, page 304, of Gore's book.

After the debate, I clicked between the networks and watched the talking heads discuss their feelings about which of the candidates was more "convincing" in this dispute. Nobody bothered to pick up a copy of the damned book, turn to page 304, and compare what the candidates said with the rather specific and easily checked facts of the matter.

The book was a best-seller. It shouldn't have been hard to find a copy. Once Quayle cited a specific page number, I got up, walked across the living room, grabbed a copy of the book and looked up the passage. My apartment was apparently better equipped than the research departments of ABC, NBC and CBS news.

Yet none of the "journalists" apparently considered this their job. It did not even occur to them to look up the disputed passage.

What are the facts? What is true? They were not interested in such questions. All they cared about was: 1) repeating what was said by each of the opposing sides on this disputed matter of fact, and 2) reporting their own feelings about how convincing/compelling/inspiring each of the speakers was in making his case.

No one has ever been better at exploiting journalists' disregard for reality than George W. Bush. He and his spokespeople, and especially his vice president, have realized that it doesn't matter if what they say is in any way reconcilable with reality.

The archetypal Bush moment occurred in the White House on July 14, 2003. Sitting just a few feet from a shocked U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Bush said the following:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Astonishing. It wouldn't have been more astonishing if the president had claimed, say, that the Pacific Ocean does not exist. This transcends mere dishonesty. Bush wasn't lying -- he was spinning whole new worlds, new histories, alternate realities.

Even more astonishing: few journalists considered it their job to point out that it was impossible to reconcile Bush's statement with the truth.

Comments

For me it was in 1984. Mondale and Ferraro were running against President Bush and Acting-President Reagan. I watched the "vice" president's debate where Ferraro had piles of notes and pages running to get facts. She demolished Bush on every single point, easily and cleanly, all the while Bush could only said, "Tow the Line", "Stay the Course", "Don't change horses in mid-stream".

Yet to my utter surprise, Tom Brokaw got on the air when it was over and said, "As we just saw, Bush easily won the debate and Ferraro didn't have a leg to stand on..." I turned to my dad and asked if Brokaw was watching the same debate.

It was the first time I had seen just how blatantly media personalities will lie (spin) and tell the viewers the diametric opposite of what had actually just happened.

Acting-President Bush II's handlers know that when they use Bush to tell obvious lies, no one is going say anything to refute it.

In Orwell's book 1984, his protagonist, Winston Smith, was employed by The State to re-write news articles to reflect the current Truth. Today, The State doesn't have to even bother. They know that no one will dare expose the lies (becuase Dan Rather's corporate masters will NOT back him).

In Wag The Dog, Anne Heche says, "But they'll find out it's not true!"
Robert DeNiro, puzzeled, says, "Who?"
Heche replies, "The American People!"
DeNiro says, "Who is going to tell them?"

And that's what we have today, who is going to tell the American People the truth? Not the so-called Liberal Media, and certainly not the state-run media, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or Newsmax, etc...

[myxococus]

Another topic where this gets incredibly irritating : reporting to the public about basic results of evolutionary biology research. Whenever there's a significant bit of research in the field of evolutionary biology - something that really helps us to understand the biological world and how it changes - it has to be reported alongside some article, or with commentary about how some people believe in creationism. When reporters present the results of scientific research on any other topic, they discuss the results and ask the researchers and other scientists to explain the scientific implications of the research. They don't go around asking laypeople about their opinion of whether the science is true or not. Yet every time they present evolutionary studies alongside creationist propaganda (which is often filled with half-truths or bizarre interpretations of various scientific results) they make it appear as though scientists are all sitting around thinking, "Hey, does evolution occur, or not?" when in reality its accepted that evolution occurs. What scientists are actually trying to understand is how it occurs, what factors influence the course and timing of evolution, and also to understand the history of the natural world (i.e. How did humans evolve from primates?). PBS is even selling this bogus video espousing creationist doctrines and plenty of half-truths, if not outright lies alongside the very good "Evolution" series that it produced a few years ago. Why? Because they want to give equal representations to people's opinions, even if those people are spreading false information. Irritating!!!

[Davis X. Machina]

few journalists considered it their job to point out that it was impossible to reconcile Bush's statement with the truth.

While the King may be misled by corrupt, venal or incompetent Ministers, and the King-in-His-Person may be mistaken, the King-in-His-Majesty cannot be wrong.

Good-bye, Madison, hello Bossuet.

[Michael Bowen]

This transcends mere dishonesty. Bush wasn't lying -- he was spinning whole new worlds, new histories, alternate realities.

This is what I would call "Matrix" lying... it's the kind of lying that only a "Neo" or an "Agent Smith" could get away with.