Accounting is not glamorous. Journalism is more so. But the two professions have things in common.
As a student way back when, I learned that the prestigious AICPA had an enforcement arm, and that most of its efforts were dedicated to disciplining CPA’s who engaged in advertising, then prohibited. I was also shocked to learn that the dreary profession of auditing did not consider uncovering fraud to be part of its job. Furthermore, there was a blatant conflict of interest easily apparent: the auditing function is done by private entities in the pay of the very people they were charged with monitoring.
The result: Enron, Arthur Anderson, Wall Street banking collapse, rating agencies deliberately puffing up financial instruments of no value. Those are only the scandals we know about.
How does this come about? Professional auditors sense power, as we all do, and know where not to tread. The codification of the inability to uncover fraud naturally followed. The refusal of Arthur Anderson to discipline Enron is natural and predictable. Enron monitored the auditors, and because Enron picked up the tab, the auditors internalized the power structure and behaved accordingly.
This piece, by David Crisp, is an example of a similar force at work in his profession. Mr. Crisp is a serious man of letters and a gentleman, and I dispense with any further mention of his name. I select his writing here merely to highlight the broader Enronization of journalism. His piece in fact defers to higher authorities in his profession, and is a musing on objectivity and professional standards. Political ads are telling lies, and the profession debates about whether pointing out these lies in articles, “ledes,” or even headlines, will compromise objectivity.
Auditors have equally serious debates about their own trivia. They are up against powerful forces, as are journalists. Power is a magnet, and journalists, like auditors, are but metal flecks.
So the question becomes how to maintain dignity while serving power. “Objectivity” in journalism serves the same function as “professional standards of auditing.” Journalism allowed Iraq, 1991 and 2003, Kosovo, Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, and is currently serving up Syria and Iran. Just call them their Enrons writ large.
A close reading of the article in question reveals that there are only two parties (often referred to as “both*” thereby excluding all others) constitute the entire frame of reference for journalists. Is Mr. Romney telling lies? Of course, as is Mr. Obama. Journalists are concerned about fact-checking the little lies. The big ones, contained in the framework of two-party politics, are off-limits. Journalism, as structured, will never uncover those lies. It’s not their job.
American auditors and journalists serve as window dressing. Their primary purpose is to prevent accountability.
____________________
*I’ve been bouncing in and out of here today and must do a fix-up and clarification – the article does not use the word “both” and I am referring to the larger journalistic sphere. In Crisp’s piece he does refer only to the two parties, and so all politics is in reference to differences between them. The critical point is that if the two parties agree, then there is no discussion. Period. They agree on almost everything, so that journalists are relegated to dissecting and fact-checking 30-second ads. That’s a problem inherent in oligarchy, and also in a climate where real journalism is discouraged.