Key Media Drop Pretense of Objectivity

The following paragraph appeared in the Washington Post recently:

 “President Trump has settled on a strategy of fear – laced with falsehoods and racially tinged rhetoric – to help lift his party to victory in the coming midterms, part of a broader effort to energize Republican voters with two weeks left until the Nov. 6 elections.” 

Was it an (1) editorial, (2) opinion column or (3) a news article?

In an era that seems long ago, the answer would have been (1) or (2), certainly not (3).

But in October 2018, the item was on the front page, upper left-hand corner (most prominent position) of the Washington Post.

When a newspaper places opinions and characterizations such as “strategy of fear”, “racially tinged rhetoric” and “falsehoods” in a so-called news article, it has abandoned all pretense of objectivity.

That the Washington Post and New York Times lean left in their editorials is hardly a new discovery, nor is the fact that their reporting has long been biased in favor of the Left.

But it is noteworthy that now even the pretense of objectivity has been abandoned, certainly as far as coverage of President Trump is concerned.

Still, you’ll hear defenders of the news media proclaim that they are being honest in what they believe.  But that is missing the point.  Readers of what are purportedly news articles are looking for facts, not opinions.  The latter were, in the old days, supposedly confined to editorial pages.

To be sure, it was a myth that editorial opinion did not shape the context of news articles.  Many years ago, The Sensible Conservative worked for a conservative opinion journal in New York City.  We joked that the Times’ slogan of “All the News That’s Fit to Print” was more accurately described as “All the News that Fits…”  We meant that the Times featured those stories which were favorable to the Left and downplayed or ignored news which was unfavorable to the Left and/or helpful to Conservatives.

The articles themselves were usually accurate and thus the bias was not obvious.  One didn’t know what wasn’t printed nor that there may have been other facts not disclosed which contradicted the thrust of the news article.  That approach allowed the liberal news media to maintain its façade of objectivity.

No longer.

The irony is that the prevalence of opinion-laced journalism is self-destructive and, hence, serves the political interests of their opponents. Such blatant bias damages the economic interests of the media companies which are paying the salaries of such journalistic pretenders.

Only those on the Left will subscribe to such publications because their contents are politically agreeable.  Non-leftists, both those in the middle and on the Right will put their subscription money elsewhere.  The shattered pretense of objectivity gives them no alternative.

What Does Sincerity or Appearance of Credibility Have to do with Truth?

 Not as much as is commonly thought.

How often have we heard someone being commended for being ‘believable”?

Think of the widespread view that the Kavanaugh “sex assault” hearing featured two people making “very believable” presentations – and each sharply disputing the position of the other.  Certainly, someone (maybe both) was not telling the truth.

That doesn’t mean, necessarily, that one was a liar.  There is a general misconception that a person who says something that is untrue is a liar.  But a person who believes something that is false would seem as believable – credible – as someone who believes what is actual truth.  A liar, on the other hand, knows that what he is saying is false; he does not believe it.  For liars (certainly not all), their manner betrays their insincerity (such as looking down, the tone of the voice, refusal to look the listener in the eye, etc.).  The sincere person believes in what he is saying and so appears truthful.  But the reality is actually only that the person genuinely believes what he is saying.  Plainly, belief does not make an assertion true.

So how does one differentiate behind the conflicting accounts of two people, each of whom appears credible (but obviously one or neither is)?   

This is what judges and juries try to do every day.

In the mid-twentieth century, famed New York City trial attorney Louis Nizer wrote an acclaimed memoir entitled  My Life in Court.  In the book’s introduction, Nizer advised readers that if they learn nothing else from reading the collection of his noteworthy cases it should be this:  in judging a person’s credibility ignore how he testifies – focus instead on what he says.  Simply, does it make sense?  If so, he may be truthful, if not, he probably isn’t.

People tend to act in predictable ways.  If a person claims that he acted in a way one knows is unusual, skepticism is appropriate.

An extreme example:  A witness states that even though someone in a crowded theater where he was present shouted fire and those around him were fleeing, he remained in his seat.  No matter how believable, how creditable the witness seemed, it is highly unlikely that his account was true.