Those Lying Journalists

  

 By Florida Bill

             At a recent rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., the always pugilistic Donald Trump leveled an upper cut at reporters characterizing them as "lying, disgusting journalists." Trump added that Russian President Putin has been accused of killing them, but "I would never kill them." (Just in case anybody was worried.) He then singled out two New York Times reporters and NBC's Chuck Todd, as prevaricators.

                    Members of the media, by and large those on the more liberal side,  screamed foul.  How dare he accuse reporters of lying?  Like scurrilous attacks on Mexican illegal immigrants; it's just more wild and outrageous comments by a  carnival barker.  People will not stand for that kind of talk.  He is the liar, not the newsmen.   

                     Of course it is not always the news person to blame for less than perfect truths during these elections months. During political races, there is no question that candidates exaggerate and advance theories, conclusions and solutions to America's problems which are pretty far south of the truth.  Examples of that are easy to find. Trump told of seeing "thousands"of New Jersey Muslims celebrating as the Twin towers went down. Not altogether false, but perhaps quite a bit of an exaggeration as to the number. Remember  Hillary Clinton's emotional recounting of how she ducked bullets when, as First Lady, she landed in Bosnia for a visit. That was complete baloney, and she later admitted as such.                            But do the media's talking heads and reporters covering these events actually lie?  Trump says they do. 

                     The question is, as Bill Clinton might observe, "Just what is a lie?"

                      A genuine lie, I believe, is premeditated; a statement with knowledge and intent.  So for the most part, with some exceptions, reporters do not really lie. What they do, and it is done all the time, is color their reports and make their stories more appealing both to the gullible public, but perhaps most of all to their bosses and editors.  Good stories can mean greater recognition for the reporter and a higher pay grade.   When called out for a "lie," they can argue that what they said was what they believed the accurate truth to be. Sometimes when they deliver a report wide of the  mark, they plead that it was accidental, although most of the time reporters who fudge on the truth are never put into a position to explain the deviation. 

                       In one-on-one interviews, reporters make notes and then return to their office to compose a story, and using their poetic license, make direct quotes more lively or more emotional; maybe even more accusatory of a government official. When a point is not completely clear, and their scribbled notes are lacking, they often become creative and simply fill in the blanks.  If the story appears and generates a complaint as to an inaccuracy, the reporter and his editors simply "stand by the story" and that is the end of the matter. When a tape recorder is available to show there is an error on the part of the reporter, a "clarification" or "correction" is usually published . Recording devices are much more prevalent today than in years past.  The situation seems similar to police officers wearing cameras when making arrests or using force in the arrests. A little bit of a technological backup to make sure the truth bubbles to the surface.    
                   Enhancing quotes might take the form of injecting tear-jerking pathos.  Just yesterday, in a story of an accidental shooting of a grandmother in Chicago by a policeman, it was reported that a cousin told a Tribune reporter in an interview: "I want this investigation to be thorough.  I want answers. Her blood is crying out from the grave saying, Evelyn, avenge me."  I am sure that the editor liked that quote.  Do you believe that quote was fabricated?  I sure do, but so what?

                     Public officials are for the most part "fair game" and by now should be used to putting up with some "misquotes" here and there.  Defamation and libel laws are all but impossible to litigate when the person allegedly defamed is a public official.  To succeed in a case of libel against a newsman, the libeled official must be able to demonstrate that the news person published false facts and that it was done with malice, in that he knew or should have known the facts were false; an almost impossible burden. 

                      The fact is that newscasters and reporters have a lot of leeway in what they can say about any candidate without worrying about landing in court. But then candidates can rant and rave over anything and promise to make things better and exaggerate and denounce with almost complete impunity as well.  Anybody who expects to see 100 percent truth and accuracy in political reporting is a bit of an optimist.

                       Years ago in Chicago--and my reporters friends will certainly remember this-- the Chicago Daily News and then the Chicago Tribune broke ground in the early 1970's by announcing new efforts to promote accuracy and fairness in news stories.  In the Daily News, as I recall, it was designated the paper's "Bureau of Fairness and Accuracy" and readers were invited to contact the paper with their complaints of errors.

                    The Tribune called it "Clarifications and Corrections."   The Chicago's American and the Chicago Sun Times, also dailies, created similar departments.

                        The complaints and gripes and demands for corrections, etc., came fast and furious.  The papers had to assign full time editors to supervise the "rollbacks" as they were called.  Were the inaccuracies  "outright prevarications," or just screw-ups, misunderstandings or even examples of lazy reporting?

                       Soon it became clear that newspapers got their faces pushed into the fact that mistakes and inaccuracies and misquotes were rampant in their pages, but to the dedicated reader of the corrections columns, it should have been clear that the errors were almost always just an unfortunate part of publishing daily newspapers and presenting the news electronically.

                          I remember one of the Daily News' first corrections and I guess it made the point that the paper wanted to be perfectly accurate, but for the most part, it was sort of silly.  That one read:   "In its Oct. 23 editions, The Daily News incorrectly identified as limestone, a section of facing on the building at 23 W. Madison that fell and killed a woman walking on the sidewalk.  The material was terra-cotta."   In another in that paper,  a story referred to Iran as one of a number of "Arab Oil Countries."  The paper then pointed out that it was mistaken and that "Iranians are not Arabs."

                        The very conservative Chicago Tribune, where I was a reporter and an editor for 25 years, was the city's biggest seller and of course got hit with plenty of requests for corrections.   In one story  the paper reported that a Stanton Friedman of California, and his wife, had claimed to have been aboard an alien spacecraft.  Friedman , a nuclear physicist, space scientist and lecturer on UFOS, was livid and demanded clarification.  The Trib admitted its faux pas and said in its correction that Mr. Friedman and his wife advise that they have never been in or have ever seen a flying saucer. "The Tribune regrets the error" was the paper's sign off. That was kind of a doozie, but it is hard to believe any reporter would have risked his reputation to intentionally lie about something so easily refuted.  
                         And politicians jumped on the "Corrections and Clarifications" trend, since as public figures they had no where else to turn for clarifications.  It could be embarrassing,  as it was to Donald Rumsfeld, chief of staff to President Ford.  In a profile written by Washington correspondent Aldo Beckman, Rumsfeld was quoted as saying that his six years as a congressman had been a "big bore." Rumsfeld denied ever panning work as a congressman and explained in a clarification that he has always had a great respect for Congress and took pride in the privilege of serving there. 

                         Of course, there have been incidents of reporters from major papers caught fabricating stories, and some of the stories actually won the authors huge acclaim and awards, before they were uncovered as liars and fired.  Recently a Rolling Stones reporter told the story of a campus rape victim which turned out to be fiction.  These out-and-out fabrications are lies, but they really are the exception. Newspapers and television stations do not look kindly on such behavior.   Plagiarism is another journalistic sin that shows up every so often among columnists and other writers.  When discovered, those scriveners are usually fired as well. 

                          Yes, there is fudging and shading of the truth and more than a little exaggerating and even honest misunderstandings that go into creating "accidental" untruths. And of course, sometimes the interviewed person finds his or her  accurate quotes embarrassing in the cold hard light of day, or when they provoke an unanticipated public reaction. It is always easier to call the media liars than explain what you really meant to say.                       In America there is a Constitution and a First Amendment which guarantees freedom of the press and that sometimes means taking the good along with the corrections and clarifications. 

                               

                                          xxx