Bill O’Reilly hit the nail on the head this week: Newspapers which use their front pages to further the prospects of one political candidate over another are threatening the integrity of our political process.
Last week, five days before the California recall election, the Los Angeles Times assailed Arnold Schwarzenegger with a classic front-page, journalistic attack piece: “Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them” (Oct. 2, 2003). That “news article” was roundly criticized from many quarters, even from the left.
Liberal law professor (and former campaign manager for Michael Dukakis) Susan Estrich wrote (in “A Deplorable October Surprise,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3, 2003):
What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press.
It was more than a smear; it was an inexcusable breach of journalistic ethics. According to the “New York Times Manual of Style and Usage,”
[A]nonymity is a last resort … [and] must not become a cloak for attacks on people, institutions or policies.
“If pejorative remarks are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased … The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.
In other words, if you are going to allow someone to use your newspaper to smear someone else, and the story is compelling enough to justify using an unnamed source, then do not directly quote the source’s statements – paraphrase them. Don’t give the unnamed source the pleasure of choosing her own colorful language to engage in the attack of another’s character – a vivid quote is unfair to the person attacked and valueless to a reader who cannot assess the credibility of the source.
Now, the Los Angeles Times is not bound by the “New York Times Style Manual,” but I can’t imagine the boys in Los Angeles admitting to having a lower standard than the New York Times. By directly quoting the shocking language used to smear Schwarzenegger, the Los Angeles Times allowed its prestige (or what’s left of it) to be used by people who need not assume any responsibility for what they said or how they said it.
Even more troubling is the emerging evidence that the Los Angeles Times’ real intent was to provide talking points for Gov. Davis’ campaign to stop the recall. No matter what the Los Angeles Times says in defense of the content and timing of its story, how can it explain the recent charges by Jill Stewart – a former reporter for the Los Angeles Times – that in 1997, the Los Angeles Times actually spiked a story that would have revealed several incidents where Gray Davis mistreated women on his staff. As for the excuse the paper gave to the reporters for not running their story: Because the story relied on anonymous sources!
Moreover, according to the L.A. Weekly (in “The Times Leaks on Arnold,” Oct. 3-9, 2003), “Senior Democratic strategists knew the particulars of last Thursday’s L.A. Times expose on Arnold Schwarzenegger well in advance of the story’s publication.”
Did the editors of the Los Angeles Times take sides in the recall election? They certainly did on their editorial page, but that’s not the problem. If they want to run Gray Davis’ or another Democrat’s political campaign from their editorial page, fine. More power to them. What is disturbing is how they used their news division to further their political agenda. It was a stunt that exceeded anything Arnold has ever done on the silver screen.
It was a repugnant moment in journalism, one which prompted over 1,000 readers of the paper to express their disgust by canceling their subscriptions. Fortunately, the immediate effect on the election was inconsequential. More profound, however, are the long-term effects on the reputation of the Los Angeles Times and what the affair says about the direction of journalism.
As for the Los Angeles Times, many now view the paper in the same vein as a supermarket tabloid. And by no means is the Los Angeles Times any different from the New York Times, which typically uses more subtle means to flavor its news pages with its left-wing agenda. Consider the following startling admission this week by media writer for the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg (“Schwarzenegger Prompts Role Reversal Among Media,” Oct. 6, 2003):
“Arnold Groped Us! Six Women’s Horror Stories”
“Schwarzenegger Shocker: I Admire Hitler”
No, these scoops did not appear first in the supermarket tabloids, the National Enquirer, the Star or the Globe. The news breaks, albeit with significantly more subdued headlines, actually came from mainstream news organizations like the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and ABC News.
Leaving aside the damage the mainstream press is doing to its own credibility, consider the injustice it is doing to the American public. Newspapers are fond of preaching “the people’s right to know,” a principle that is fundamental to the proper workings of a free political system. But when a paper delivers opinion disguised as news, it is distorting what the people have a right to know.
That is why, as Bill O’Reilly suggested earlier this week, newspapers which disguise their political agendas in the form of “straight” news – favoring one candidate over another on their news pages, rather than confining their political and ideological views to the editorial pages – threaten the underpinnings of a free society. By passing off opinion as news, the newspaper affects how people view the world – not how it actually is, but how the newspaper believes it should be.
Our electoral process depends on a public well-informed about how the world really is – in other words, the truth, as impartially or objectively as dedicated professionals can report it. Then, aided by the influence of analysis, commentary and editorial opinion, people can make informed choices about how the world should be and who to vote for to effect change for the better.
By distorting the truth in their news pages, newspapers like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are kicking the legs out from under democracy. Analysis, commentary and editorial opinion become meaningless and often misguided when, rather than being based upon the truth, they are based upon how the newspapers want you to view the world.
We are heading into a presidential election year, folks. Keep a close eye on how the truth is being reported about the success in Iraq. Watch the news on the economy and employment – compare the actual numbers with how they are being reported. Learn how to recognize the subtle and not-so-subtle techniques of how the news is being distorted.
The time to take a close look at the press and their practices is now. We cannot afford to wait until the threat is imminent.
