Influence trumps truth: the rise of the post-journalistic world

"The honest, disinterested voice of a true journalist carries an authority that no self-branded liberal or conservative can have."

In the October issue of The Atlantic journalist and editor Mark Bowden writes a beautiful piece on the tragic swap of thoughtful reporting for quick, "ammunition" journalism. He revisits the media's treatment of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. Large news outfits were drawing their clips from political operatives--including bloggers--not professional journalists. And this is not unique to the Sotomayor story. Bowden calls this the post-journalist world. This world is no longer about facts.

Bloggers' intentions are to highlight their side, to build a case for their opinion. On most occasions, blogs are our personal op-ed pages. Words, facts, quotes, even video clips can be manipulated to our liking and disseminated with little fear of harsh consequences. And here, in the blogosphere the value is placed on winning, not accuracy. Influence trumps truth. What a loaded shift that is.

Throughout my journalism education, we were overwhelmed with the importance of reporting true facts, with the virtuous purpose of equiping citizens to sovereignly govern themselves. Journalism had the power to temper fear-mongering and deception often coupled with politics. The rise and maturation of the newspaper provided an invaluable public service. It was the fourth branch of government--the ultimate check. Bowden notes, "Without journalism, the public good is viewed only through a partisan lens, and politics becomes blood sport."

The game of politics has unlikely changed over time. Persuasion has always been a necessary tool and power is always the aim. But there was a healthy caution to the game--provided by the journalist. Now, as hard reporting gives way to the quest for influential banter, truth becomes irrelevant.

The collapse of journalism seems to be a final victory for relativists. But can society truly rest happy in an environment where truth is undecipherable? I'm a strong believer in the power of truth. And therefore, I cannot accept that journalism has seen its best days. One day, truth will rise again.

As Bowden poignantly writes, "Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth."

Deja vu?

Recent political slander has been awfully redundant. It seems as if political pundits--and the average American mudslinger--have forgotten parallel events in our recent political history. We're so quick to anger over events that we've defended in the past.

Last week, parents, politicians, activists, and scholars were up in arms over President Obama's plan to address our nation's schoolchildren on Tuesday. (I found some validity to the frustrations, but for reasons beyond the simple address. See last week's post)

This week, Representative Joe Wilson's disrespectful outburst during President Obama's health care address has raised quite a stink--and over a million dollars, too--among liberals of all walks, and moderate or level-headed conservatives.



Likewise, when President George H. W. Bush gave a similar speech to school children in 1991, Democratic lawmakers ordered an investigation and The Washington Post wrote, "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props."

In other similar bout of deja vu, President George W. Bush was booed by Democrats during his State of the Union speech in 2005.



Today, mud slinging is the name of the game--even in prime time media. I certainly don't seek to silence the dissension, that is what makes America so great. And, I happen to agree that our elected officials should respect each other in all arenas, and that any president's address to young and impressionable should be carefully scrutinized. However, let us of be mindful of double standards and think twice before we respond in fury. When we scold a Republican for lashing out against our Democrat president, let's remember that just a few years ago Democrats were booing our Republican president. When we protest our liberal president's address to our children, let's remember we saw a conservative president do the same thing a decade ago.

I think Thomas Paine said it best, "Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice."

from the outside

Our presidential election has captured the attention of the world. And Obama’s victory has captured their hearts. And no better time then now.

Below is an excerpt from a post-election email from my dear South African friend. I think this letter is pretty telling:

"Obama's election was really cool. It lifted the morale of this 
country. People from different walks of life, including the most 
conservative South Africans were talking about it ... the US 
elections came at a time where we are going through a very 
interesting time in our politics … I think the world will be a little safer with Obama. The Iranians who Bush labeled as 'axis of evil' have 
welcomed Obama's election, Hugo Chaves was also raving about Obama's 
election, the Pope was one of the first people to congratulate him, 
the German chancellor was pretty excited about Obama's election, she 
said she knows that the relationship between the EU and the US will 
not be as fragile as its been under Bush and our very own Nelson 
Mandela said Obama's election was an inspiration and he believes 
he'll go on and become a good president.


 Anyway, the excitement is still evident here. This weekend was a voter registration weekend and a lot of people registered. The whole 
nation is saying, "Yes, I can!”

Currently, in one of my classes, I’m studying the recent history of U.S. relations in the Middle East and I’m realizing the grave implications of the negative reputation we’ve established in the last 60 years. Our cultural ignorance, inconsiderate national interest, and manipulative politics has put the American people in harm’s way—not to mention the livelihood of our global allies, as well.

When it comes to international relationships, we must approach the world holistically and creatively. We must make the effort to understand the cultures we engage with. And above all, we must value humanity—all humanity. We must grant dignity to all we come in contact with. And that’s where I believe our future president will excel.

The time is now to reshape our image—from the inside and, maybe more importantly, from the outside.

live thoughts from the debate.

6:00 PM PST Watching CNN debate coverage of town hall-style presidential debate in APU’s Student Union

6:10 PM McCain is asked for suggestions as to who would take over for Treasury Secretary Paulson. He suggests Meg Whitman, who is the former CEO of EBay. Point for McCain—he knows of EBay! Take that, critics who think he's "out of the loop!"

6:13 PM McCain addresses the issue of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. He accuses Obama and "his cronies" (minus a point for McCain—his choice in vocab dates him) for allowing Americans to purchase homes way beyond their means. Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in history. McCain cites his vocal opposition to Fannie & Freddie. It's about time McCain brings up that point. Throughout the years, he has consistently spoken against Fannie & Freddie.

6:16 PM Obama claims he alerted Paulson that we were in a sub-prime lending crisis a year ago. So who had the insight? And why didn't Obama address McCain's accusation of benefiting from Fannie & Freddie? Sounds fishy to me.

6:19 PM McCain says, "We can fix our economy. Americans are the best workers in the world. We've got to give them a chance. They are the innocent bystanders in the biggest financial crisis in our time."

It’s interesting that both candidates blame each other. The Democrats resisted tighter regulation. The Republicans pushed for too much financial deregulation. But what about all those greedy Americans who insisted on spending beyond their means? We’ve got to take some individual responsibility for this mess. I don’t think we’re as innocent as we want to be.

6:20 PM "How can we trust either of you when both of your parties got us into this global economic mess?" A brilliant question, that won’t receive an honest answer.

Obama of course goes back to George W. (I'm amazed at how much he focuses on George. We all know he messed up. Move on. Stop capitalizing on someone's mistakes & come up with some creative ideas.) "I'm cutting more than I'm spending… Are our priorities working for you? We've got to put an end to lobbyists & special interests dictating public policy.” I find it hard to believe he’ll put an end to that.

6:29 PM McCain states we need to eliminate some government programs. We have to look at what programs aren't working. For example, defense spending (AMEN to that!). He recommends a spending freeze except for vital programs like defense, veteran's defense & others. Which others, I wonder? But I agree. It’s time to cut back on government & give that power to nongovernmental organizations.

6:35 PM Obama proposes doubling the Peace Corps, which is a bad idea. During his administration, Clinton introduced an initiative to send out 10,000 Peace Corps volunteers by 2000. And in 2002 Bush asked for the current Peace Corps to be doubled. Congress passed a\ budget increase at $325 million in 2004. Both presidents pat themselves on the back because they sent Americans out to help the less fortunate. However, this did nothing to solve the problem. As an accepted and potential Peace Corps volunteer, I’ve been informed that countries were receiving too many volunteers for their infrastructure to support and in turn, American Peace Corps volunteers were becoming bored & actually causing mischief--and thus harming the American reputation.

6:39 PM Obama says he wants to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans. If you make less that $250000, you won't lose a dime. And if you make less than $200,000 you will receive a tax cut. Economic experts have said once retirees and those without children are factored in, only 81% of American will truly benefit from Obama's tax cuts. And my other question is, won’t that discourage productivity for those at an income level of $250,000? Why make $251,000 if you can avoid the extra tax and just make $250,000?

6:50 PM McCain voted against a Bush-Cheney bill currently on the floor with all kinds of "goodies for the oil company." But Obama voted for the bill. I’d be interested to see why.

6:54 PM McCain gets a few of the facts to his healthcare plan wrong. "The government will do this and the government will do that. I propose a $5,000 refundable tax credit for each American family to buy their healthcare," says McCain. Some things to note about his plan: It’s actually $2,500 per individual. Workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, which would offset some of that credit. Experts have said a tax credit plan like this could cause companies to reduce health benefits for their employees.

7:02 PM McCain: "We don't have time for on the job training." --maybe one of the better sound bites of the night.

7:09 PM "Should America respect Pakistan?"

Obama: We have this situation in Pakistan because we went into Iraq before the job was finished in Afghanistan. It's important to end the War in Iraq & finish the job in Afghanistan. We have to change our policies in Pakistan. We can't coddle their dictator. He needs to expand our non-military aid so that they have more invested. If we have Osama bin Laden in our sight & Pakistan is unable or refuses to take him out, then we will go in. We will kill Osama and we will crush Al Qaeda. I agree with Obama on all of the above. However, it’s important that we don’t simply end Iraq, but that we finish what we started, no matter how corrupt it started. Unfortunately, our current president has put us in harm’s way and now we’ve got to clean up after him.

McCain: Teddy Roosevelt said, "Talk softly, but carry a big stick." Obama wants to talk loudly and carry a small stick. I can’t say which one is better. I feel safer with Roosevelt’s plan. But am wondering what’s morally right.
7:20 PM McCain reminds us that when he looked into Putin’s eyes, he “saw a K, a G, and a B.” Maybe it's time to drop that line…

7:26 PM "If Iran attacks Israel, will you wait for the UN Security Council or will you act on your own?"

McCain: We will obviously not wait for the UN Security Council. Russia & China would provide obstacles. Iran is not only a threat to Israel but the entire Middle East. Definitely a military answer.

Obama: We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. We will never take military action off the table. And we cannot provide veto power to the UN. If we can diplomatically blah blah blah... which doesn't answer the question. But I will agree with Obama, that we should have direct talks with not only our friends but also our enemies.

7:31 PM What don't you know? And how will you learn it?

Points for anyone who answers this correctly.

Obama: Ask Michelle.
McCain: The future.

Guess that’s a tie. And pretty indicative of the entire night.

pulpit politics

“Who would Jesus vote for?”

This weekend over 30 pastors nationwide gave their opinion on “God’s choice” for 2009.

Some pastors alluded to who they would be voting for while others went as far as to state that their endorsement was the only candidate approved by God.

This pulpit politics is a result of a meeting two weeks ago between 150 pastors and Alliance Defense Fund. The socially conservative legal group pushed their “Pulpit Initiative,” which encouraged pastors to speak up this past Sunday in an effort to “restore the right of each pastor to speak Scriptural truth from the pulpit about moral, social, governmental, and other issues without fear of losing his church’s tax exempt status.”

According to law, any political endorsement from a church official violates the laws that keep tax-exempt organizations from involvement in political campaigns. However, the Alliance Defense Fund promised to sue the IRS if the department threatens these churches. ADF is arguing that these pastors are being censored by not being allowed to share their opinion.

But no one is telling pastors they can’t speak their mind. They just can’t do so when taxpayers are subsidizing their organizations. And neither can any other tax-exempt organization. It’s not a faith-discrimination thing. It’s about protecting the taxpayer’s money.

Do I want my tax money subsidizing a Baptist church’s campaign to elect the “Christian” choice for a nation I do not believe to be Christian by Constitution? Certainly not.

For example, Pastor Gus Booth of Minnesota announced in his church that, “If you're a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.” There’s no way I can support such a statement. So thank you, IRS, for protecting the use of my money.

As I go about trying to live according to the faith I’ve chosen to believe in, I try my best to picture Jesus acting in the context of our society. And I just cannot picture him standing in the synagogue telling listeners which Pharisee to listen to. Throughout the Bible Jesus continued to remind his followers that our hope is not in a worldly order but rather in a new government that is yet to come.

Maybe if pastors spent more time paying attention to the words of Jesus and less time listening to special interest groups more concerning with power than truth, our politics would look a lot different.