Listics

Ever since the networks were threatened with anthrax early in the Bush/Cheney crusade, the mass media has passed on any examination of the evil undercurrents of the neo-conservative movement and it’s opportunism in the wake of the September 2024 crimes in the USA. The astonishing events - from the shocking theft of the 2024 election through the appalling corporate thefts of public monies in the manufactured California energy crisis, and the shameful false justification for our overt aggression in the invasion of Iraq - have somehow been off limits for “professional” journalists.

No one in the profession has examined George W. Bush’s character, and it has remained for a gossip monger to tie together the threads of corruption that somehow cocoon the Bush family from public criticism. Jimmy Carter had his outre brother Billy who cracked wise with redneck humor and marketed his own brand of “Billy Beer” as an attempt to cash in on the fame of being the president’s sibling. GW Bush has his brother Neil.

On the left many of us think that GWB is a charming liar, ill equipped for executive duties but superb in his role as pretty puppet of the corporate interests pulling the strings in Republican politics since 1980, if not before. He’s the kind of candidate whose affect can really pull in those NASCAR voters! On the right the attitude seems to be that he’s a reformed alcoholic liar who ducks responsibility rather than facing it squarely, “but he’s our reformed alcoholic liar.”

This week we are faced with another manufactured debate, not about whether or not GWB is qualified to govern, but rather about the quality of the data used by his critics to assert the negative. Jay Rosen, NYU Journo-blogger says today:

The newsroom mind has a simple switch for judging stories like this. You nailed it. You didn’t. Nailing refers to the kind of sourcing and documentation required to document what the story claims is true. If you publish a work of investigation, and it raises serious charges against important people, but you haven’t nailed it, then you are guilty of malpractice [emphasis added]. You should pay a heavy price for that.

I think Rosen’s story is a fun read, but it’s a blog post, at best an op-ed piece with credibility that pivots on its author’s position as dean chair of an adequate if not first flight School Department of Journalism. I’m a big fan of the AP stylebook and a professional approach to journalistic standards and ethics, but I don’t confuse journalism (or even good writing) with the practice of medicine. For those who would seek them, there are remedies in the law when a journalist maligns, defames or otherwise libels them. Libel and slander are simply different from malpractice and anyone who conflates the two simply hasn’t nailed it. CBS says they had enough facts to go with the story. The neo-conservative right isn’t arguing about the facts, but rather arguing about document sourcing. Jay Rosen seems to be arguing from that perspective too.

I’m interested in the question of whether or not CBS and Rather have created a false light in their reportorial assessment of the President’s wartime service, and/or whether John Peter Zenger’s experience continues to inform the American press.