Journalists: They put the ‘con’ in confidence

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 
        • (2) Freedom of the Press 
        • (3) Independence 
        • (4) Sincerity, Truthfulness, Accuracy
        • (5) Impartiality
        • (6) Fair Play
        • (7) Decency
        • (8) Smugness

OK, I added that last 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 journalist 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.

12 thoughts on “Journalists: They put the ‘con’ in confidence”

  1. I’m reminded of a quote also. Can’t remember where I read it. It’s similar
    Never forget the con in confidence or the sin in sincerity.

    I remember Bob Packwood who, in 1993, said when asked about how public officials break the law and don’t go to jail. His response was that when congress writes laws, they write into the law that they’re “exempt”. Soon after, 1995, amid “sexual allegations”, lol, he resigned. Which is strange. I can resign my contract, or I can resign from my contract.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks Ray and fknstr … after you commented I shortened this post by removing all of the gratuitous window dressing in the journalism canon. Ray, I watched the Python piece on the Silly Party, and was reminded of a post I intend to write some day on the reason why we have a “two party” system. The reason is that underneath it all is only one party, which is split in two to present the illusion of conflict, and also to serve differing personality types, soft and idealistic Democrats and hard-nosed Republicans.

      There! Now I don’t have to bother writing the post. If only I could shorten everything like that. As Mark Twain is said to have said to a friend, sorry for writing a long letter like this, but I did not have time to write a shorter one. Probably apocryphal.

      Like

      Reply

  3. There was some NYT journalist years back that got busted for making stuff up, and for a while was the poster child for that – they probably cited his case in articles about Williams, with pearl clutching over the parlous state of journalistic ethics.

    In the former case, I’m guessing it was itself a manufactured story, with the journalist playing a role for his handlers. And who knows what all agendas his phony stories served until they were exposed.

    Possibly Williams’ fib got too well known when rival media outlets exposed it, and they just had to cut him loose. Or, maybe his case was planned all along as part of a series of credibility blows to the MSM, fracturing the media landscape purposely, spraying the runway for Trump, etc.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I think what you describe is a standard tactic … to sacrifice one person or group as a goat to hide the corruption of everyone else around them. Thus was (is) baseball rife with gambling and thus was Pete Rose (member of the order of DeMolay) appointed to take a fall. Thus is lip synching the order of the day in musical performances, and thus was Milli Vanilli sacrificed to hide it.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes, exactly.. “it’s just a few bad apples, and anyone who steps out of line will eventually get caught”.. science, medicine, law enforcement, etc. And movies or TV shows use the same formula in stories of internal corruption. Although in recent decades they started programming darker, more demoralizing shows with broader institutional critique (probably still skewed in other ways.) And the Seventies was similar in its movie cynicism.

        Like

        Reply

        1. TV shows … my God are they dark! If they eliminate Navy Seals, Green Berets, whatever else, they’ve got no heroes. If they eliminate serial killers, they’ve got no bad guys. Men are for sure portrayed as pigs, you know, except the Navy Seals and Green Berets … women all over the place, and if they did not draw them all from the Hollywood pool of fashion models, they’d be a little more credible. As it is, they stage fight scenes between the models and men, and the models either win or hold their own.

          Lawyers are all incredibly good looking! In real life, good looking people like that have smooth sailing and do not have to work as hard as regular people to succeed.

          I used to enjoy Bosch, with Titus Welliver, and in one of the later episodes he is wearing his Green Beret costume to a funeral of a fallen hero. Talk about willing suspension of disbelief – poof! It was gone. He looked like an old man trying to squeeze into high school clothes, ridiculous.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Well this is an interesting tidbit of journalism, if the polls can be relied on? Anyhow it stands to reason a lot of people can understand the Trump assassination attempts were real. However, being the poll suggests that Democrats, and young people, are more likely to doubt those spectacles. Which is a good thing of course. And to which I say, look in the mirror my Democratic friends, and find out all assassination attempts, that you hear about from our respected journalists, are fake, and staged. There is plenty of evidence on this blog, so please search the archives.

            Poll: One-third say at least one Trump assassination attempt was staged

            Like

            Reply

  4. Ray, I think you’re overly optimistic.. it’s a selective thing, partisan politics. I’ve been calling them “conspiracy theorists of convenience.” You saw the same thing when Biden was in office, where Rs were suddenly receptive to some things being fake.

    With Trump’s assassination attempts, they think that somehow just he and (I guess?) parts of his administration are staging them. To smear Democrats, paint himself as a sympathetic victim, and boost his side in the midterms. The Dems and young people are not “waking up” to fakery, they just find the idea of Trump chicanery appealing and emotionally satisfying. It fits their priors..

    And in fact.. I am half expecting it to come out as “official fact” that Trump DID fake one of them.. or all of them, heck do it up right. That would be a great troll. Great plot twist. And then all Ds would believe it, if the NYT said it. And Trump and Rs would deny it, and they would each have their own reality.

    But they also love running stories on NPR about how “isn’t it sad,” even D’s are poor saps, susceptible to believing in conspiracy, and not always trusting of the trusted news sources. So there’s that-

    Like

    Reply

    1. The great hinge is this: If one thing is fake, and you’ve built your entire world view around everything presented as news to be real, then it begins to crumble your foundations. And that is disturbing, so much so that at that point most people just turn off their brains and walk away. Their sanity, their self confidence, their belief (that we all share) that they are just a little smarter than everyone else vanishes, and they are adrift. People cannot live like that.

      My own experience is quite different in that I had spent years on the JFK assassination (John Lennon running a distant second) being real and trying to unravel it. When I learned, and I will always be grateful to MM for this, that it was all staged, I felt great relief. Lennon too.

      I don’t know what is up with the realization that Trump assassinations are fake, as only people who hate Trump will allow that part of their reality to be penetrated. It’s manipulation, for sure, but also “this far, no further”. I don’t know the future so don’t know how it will be played out. Will there be a real fake assassination? In my mind I’ve already come to face a deep fear, that in 2028 we’ll be faced with the prospect of President Gavin Newsom, an actor of course, but with him will come a dismantling of all that the people behind Trump have done, to unravel climate change (but not Covid!), and then to set it in motion again, for keeps.

      There is something to be said for being my age, knowing I don’t have to live most of this shit out.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I think it relates to the blurring between “reality” (as seen in the news) and fiction or entertainment media. Everything is simulacrum, nothing is real (or it’s all on the same level of real/ unreal.)

        About 25 years back they really started pushing “conspiracy” themes in mainstream entertainment. “Truth in fiction, lies in the news.” Maybe Eyes Wide Shut inaugurated that push, around the time of 9/11. Then The Matrix, The Truman Show, and dozens of others. The X-Files.. different flavors of conspiratainment. But I think it did push more people into actually looking at the news “reality” from that perspective. Most of us are probably in part on blogs like this because of that programming, loathe as many would be to admit it (and not everyone, some just a little but would have sought it out anyway.)

        But anyway I think they welcome it as another schism – or saw it coming, and had to get out in front of it and lead the parade.

        This thread Ab linked to tries to work out what it’s about, why they’d spread skepticism about the news –

        https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2418289#p2418289

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment