Looking for the truth.

On a recent visit, my friend Reid said, “Wouldn’t it be great if (so-called) journalists were held to a professional standard regarding egregious levels of dishonest and biased reporting…something akin to disbarment for attorneys found guilty of ethics violations?”

Interesting idea. But alas. The founders of the United States believed a free press was a prerequisite for a free society. James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, said it was “one of the great bulwarks of liberty.” Thomas Jefferson said if he had a choice between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he would choose newspapers.

Granted things are different in our 24/7 news cycle world.

Today the progressive left looks to outlets like MSNBC and the New York Times for their “news,” and the conservative right relies on sources like Fox News and the New York Post. And usually, never the twain shall meet. (See the AllSides Media Bias Chart below.)

I think we can all agree that bias, or subjective reporting, exists—on both sides. The line between news and opinion, traditionally held as separate by media organizations, has become as blurry as trying to decipher the hieroglyphics on a prescription bottle without readers.

What about out-and-out dishonest reporting, suppression of information, and blatant support of one political party or ideology over another? Shouldn’t objectivity be the standard in reporting the news? How should we as consumers sift through the clamor to arrive at some semblance of truth?

On the other hand, perhaps we’re not interested in the truth, but rather information that supports our tribal predispositions.

The hallmark of the so-called “fourth estate” is to hold the other three (legislative, executive, and judiciary) accountable for their actions. But what happens when media (including social media) are “weaponized” by either side of the aisle to advance their agendas? People toss around the phrase “the greatest threat to democracy” with utter disregard for its meaning. Such collusion qualifies, in my opinion.

I received a degree in Journalism from San Diego State University, and worked on a newspaper for a while before attending grad school. We were taught a set of ethics crucial for maintaining credibility, fairness, and accuracy in reporting. These include:

  • Truth and accuracy. Verifying information before publishing, and distinguishing between facts and opinions.
  • Independence. Avoiding conflicts of interest that might influence their reporting.
  • Fairness and impartiality. Representing all viewpoints without bias, favoritism, stereotypes, or sensationalism.
  • Accountability. Correcting errors promptly and transparently.
  • Transparency. Being transparent about sources and methods (attributing information and explaining how it was obtained.)
    Respect for privacy.

Years ago Karen and I were loyal subscribers of the LA Times. I even thought early in my career I might pursue a career path leading to the Times. Then I began to notice a subtle hint of bias in many of the headlines. (Granted, headline writers are different than reporters who file their stories.) Not long after that the news section carried hints of the opinion pages. I eventually cancelled the paper.

I noticed political bias, sensationalism, and cultural and social bias. Nowadays, I’m on the lookout for corporate bias (ie news outlets exhibiting bias in favor of their owners’ interests.)

While I concur with my friend Reid’s frustration, I have no illusions about external restraints being imposed on reporters or media organizations, nor would I favor such action. Rather it’s up to us to pursue alternative sources (podcasts are the hot ticket these days), weigh the information, and decide how much (if any) credence to give the report.

Meanwhile, media from both sides of the political spectrum continue to report news with their own brand of bias or untrue information. To wit:

  • COVID-19 Mortality Claim: In 2020, MSNBC retracted a tweet and an on-air claim that 50% of Americans could die from COVID-19, which was an exaggeration and incorrect information.
  • Trump-Russia Loan Claim: In 2019, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell retracted a claim that Russian oligarchs had co-signed loans for Donald Trump from Deutsche Bank. The retraction was made after legal threats from Trump’s lawyer.
  • Seth Rich Conspiracy: In 2017, Fox News retracted a story suggesting that DNC staffer Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks before his death. The story, which lacked evidence and was discredited, was removed after a week, but no on-air apology was made.
  • Election Fraud Claims: Following the 2020 presidential election, Fox News retracted multiple stories and segments claiming widespread voter fraud involving Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. These retractions came amid legal threats from the companies involved.

This political season, the name-calling and mudslinging from Democrats (it’s not coming only from Donald Trump’s corner) and Republicans continues. The media happily serves it up to us for consumption every night along with dinner.

Those of us who hate it continue to hold our noses and wish we enjoyed a more refined political process. But history teaches us this has always been a rough and tumble game. During the first presidential election (1800), John Adams and Thomas Jefferson set the precedent for negative campaigning:

Personal attacks: Federalists labeled Jefferson as an atheist, a supporter of the French Revolution’s violence, and claimed he would dismantle American religious institutions.
Character assassination: Democratic-Republicans accused Adams of being a monarchist who wanted to establish a hereditary presidency and dubbed him a “tyrant” and “wannabe king.”
Smears in media: Newspapers affiliated with each party published scathing articles. Adams was accused of sending U.S. forces to war without Congress’s approval, and Jefferson was labeled a radical who supported Jacobinism and mob rule. (ChatGPT)
Even Abraham Lincoln took it on the chin for his side. (Caption: The Republican Party going to the right house. 1860)

In an oft-misquoted speech, Lincoln said the following:

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” – (1838)

I believe we are more divided as a nation than ever since the Civil War.

I pray we’re not committing suicide.