I can tell you from my viewpoint that spinning Montana’s newspapers was as easy as spinning a top. There’s precious little congressional news that is actually broken by a Montana newspaper. That works to the advantage of the politician. Absolutely. When you are free from a burrowing press, you pretty much have clear sailing. (Pat Williams, 1937-2025, US Representative from Montana, 1979-97)
The above quote was important to me at one time. For one, I was a Montana resident, and for another, I thought journalism was a real profession. The last book I read by Bryan Wilson Key, Subliminal Seduction, has an appendix devoted to the “Canon’s of Journalism”, which are as follows:
- (1) Responsibility — The right of a newspaper to attract and hold readers is restricted by nothing but considerations of public welfare. The use of newspaper makes of the share of public attention it gains serves to determine its sense of responsibility, which it shares with every member of its staff. A journalist who uses his power for any selfish or otherwise unworthy purpose is faithless to a high trust.
- (2) Freedom of the Press — Freedom of the press is to be guarded as a vital right of mankind. It is the unquestionable right by law, including the wisdom of any restrictive statute. To its privileges under the freedom of American institutions are inseparably joined its responsibilities for an intelligent fidelity to the Constitution of the United States.
- (3) Independence — Freedom from all obligations except that of fidelity to the public interest is vital. A. Promotion of any private interest contrary to the general welfare, for what ever reason, is not compatible with honest journalism. So-called news communications from private sources should not be published without public notice of their source or else substantiation of the claims to value as news, both in form and substance. B. Partisanship in editorial comment which knowingly departs from the truth does violence to the best spirit of American journalism; in the news columns it is subversive of a fundamental principle of the profession.
- (4) Sincerity, Truthfulness, Accuracy — Good faith with the reader is the foundation of all journalism worthy of the name. A. By every consideration of good faith, a newspaper is constrained to be truthful. It is not to be excused for lack of thoroughness, or accuracy within its control, or failure to obtain command of these essential qualities. B. Headlines should be fully warranted by the contents of the articles which they surmount.
- (5) Impartiality — Sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion. News reports should be free from opinion or bias of any kind. This rule does not apply to so-called special articles unmistakably devoted to advocacy or characterized by a signature authorizing the writer’s own conclusions and interpretations.
- (6) Fair Play — A newspaper should not publish unofficial charges affecting reputation or moral character, without opportunity given to the accused to be heard; right practice demands the giving of such opportunity in all cases of serious accusation outside judicial proceedings. A: A newspaper should no invade rights of private feelings without sure warren of public right as distinguished from public curiosity. B: It is the privilege, as it is the duty, of a newspaper to make prompt and complete correction of its own serious mistakes of fact or opinion, whatever their origin.
- (7) Decency — A newspaper cannot escape conviction of insincerity if, while professing high moral purpose, it supplies incentives to base conduct, such as are to be found in details of crime and vice, publication of which is not demonstrably for the general good. Lacking authority to enforce its canons, the journalism here represented can but express the hope that deliberate pandering to vicious instincts will encounter effective public disapproval or yield to the influence of a preponderant professional condemnation.
- Smugness: OK, I added this one. It is not part of the canon. However, and I have found this to generally be true in life and in all professions, arrogance and smugness are often a cover for inadequacy. The profession is overwhelmed each year by awards, but only to itself by other journalists. Any reporter who knows the trade as it is really practiced has a wall full of plaques and framed citations. The only other profession I know of that self-awards itself in this manner (other than acting) is advertising.
About that canon: Most professions have similar public professions of standards and beliefs. That is how they view themselves. They are really pompous.
Before proceeding I want to share a few more quotes concerning the profession, from a file I have on hand that includes the Williams quote:
- Circus dogs jump when their trainer cracks his whip, but the really well trained dog is the one that turns a somersault when there is no whip. (George Orwell)
- This is the nature of democracy: You send in the planes and drop the bombs. Then you gather in the journalists and tell them to applaud. We need to study that. (Russian General Alexander Lebed, commenting on US air strikes in Iraq, 9/96)
- A reporter …first comes up with an investigative story idea, writes it up, and submits it to the editor and is told that the story is not going to run. He wonders why, but the next time he is cautious enough to check with the editor first. He is told by the editor that it would be better not to write that story. The third time he thinks of an investigative story but he doesn’t bother the editor with it because he knows it’s silly. The fourth time he doesn’t even think of the idea anymore. (Nicholas Johnson, former FCC Commissioner)
The Pat Williams quote itself is interesting in that it was never reported or repeated in the Montana press. I knew he had said it, and don’t know why I knew that, but I could not locate it, and so broadened the search. Finally I found it, in an Idaho newspaper. But set it aside. Williams kept mum about his attitude about Montana journalism for his entire eighteen-year term of office, only dropping his little bombshell on retirement. He knew how to play the game.
Here’s a quote that inspired me to write this piece:
“In a recent interview, veteran journalism Katie Couric asked California Governor Gavin Newsome, a likely contender for the Democratic nomination in 2028, whether being ‘so ridiculously good-looking made it harder for him to be taken seriously’.”
That is not a joke, not misquoted. It’s really her perspective. Couric has had a long career as a “journalist” and I suppose I should take her seriously, but I do not. I wonder if she sat in front of him while asking that question, or if she was under his podium.
I look to the Nicholas Johnson quote above to evaluate the profession as it really exists, and not as it is portrayed on TV and in movies.
The way it is portrayed: Journalists are hard-biting professionals who doggedly pursue leads, corner people to interrogate them, and write stories that are more like exposés than narratives. They are free to pursue any story that grabs their attention. Politicians and corporate executives fear them. They are often called upon to ask questions of politicians in public debates. This is because of their depth of knowledge and willingness to confront powerful people.
The way it really is: Journalists are trained dogs who obey commands, search only where told to search, but who write and report detailed stories where all of the supposed “facts” are checked and double-checked. Certain “facts” are usually overlooked. They are trained to be “impartial”, that is, to report what is said and discovered without having an opinion about the matter. It is the ability not to form an opinion that separates them from the rest of us. It’s their raison d’état, the reason they do not know how to think properly, or to really challenge anyone with power. They are given a “beat” to cover in their training, and are not allowed to stray. The highest a journalist can advance is the position of “editor”, the ultimate trained puppy, the person who absorbed all the lessons and can enforce mediocrity on all who work under him/her. Journalists are often called upon to ask questions of politicians in public debates. This is because they know the game, and that if they ever had any time bombs in them, they have long been defused. They are safe.
I could go on … and on, but choose but one more anecdote, that of former NBC Nightly News anchorman Brian Williams. Here’s Wikipedia, so take it for what it might be worth:
He claimed that while he was flying in a military helicopter it had been “forced down after being hit by an RPG”.[48][49] Soon after it aired, Williams’ story was criticized by Lance Reynolds, a flight engineer on board one of the three Chinook helicopters that had been attacked.[50] Reynolds and other crew members said Williams had been aboard a separate group of helicopters from the helicopter that had been fired upon. Williams’ helicopter was flying about half an hour behind and was forced to make an emergency landing because of a sandstorm rather than an attack.
Unfortunately, he had to step down. I always liked Brian Williams, even though never taking him seriously. I liked him because he was genuinely witty and funny. Asked one time by comedian Jon Stewart on the Daily Show about his admiration for Walter Cronkite, one of the most highly skilled fake journalists ever to practice the trade, he said something like “Yes, in our profession, we really do look up to the man. You know, maybe like Carrot Top in yours.” Williams once talked about his job as news anchor, and I cannot quote him, as I only have a rough memory. He claimed that his job was more than just reading Teleprompters, but to write the news, and that often during commercial breaks he was sorting and substituting stories for others, judging their importance. What nonsense! They put teleprompters there for a reason.
I suspect Williams lost his job because he was genuinely funny, and so did not project enough gravitas to hold the position. The role of “news anchor” is a revered position of trust, and anchors and former anchors are held in extreme high esteem, much like religious bishops. I remember Tom Brokaw one time in an interview speaking of driving home from work one night when he received word that Saddam Hussein had been captured, so that he had to turn around and go back to work.
“To do what?”, I wondered. He didn’t “uncover” the story, which was fake anyway. He knew nothing about it other than to read his teleprompter and look officious. But that is the key to the profession, the reason why we have journalists at all levels, and the reason why television and movie script writers make them out to be such beacons of integrity: Trust. We need to trust them. Confidence. We need to know that everything they report to us has been verified and is accurate**.
Confidence. You know, like a con artist. I close with a clip from one of the very best.
I cannot know this, but suspect Cronkite knew the event was staged.
__________________
** “Everything they said was accurate but not true” was a famous line by Paul Newman in the movie Absence of Malice.
Piece of Mindful 