Swompdonkey

Of Dogs and Dogma

Yesterday, in this this piece in the Toronto Star. Susan Delacourt illustrated to what extent we in this country are increasingly preoccupied by petty, trivial matters. She segues neatly from discussing the reality vs faith based communities (a favourite media trope) in the republic to the south of us and their stake in tomorrow's election, to the latest media-fabricated scandale-du-jour up here: Whether or not Peter McKay referred to Belinda Stronach as a dog.


Boy... do we ever need to get serious.

But anyway, at the end of this commentary, ostensibly about the need to embrace the reality-based view, Delacourt writes:

the explosion of blogs and multiple news cycles create all kinds of opportunities to spread wrong information. Worse, the frenzied pace of news these days allows mistruths to be repeated so many times, they come to be seen as the truth.

So that's where she was going. The devaluing of truth is due not only to deliberate government malfeasance, but to "multiple news cycles" and to bloggers usurping journalists' traditional role as the arbiters of the truth. Sounds like someone is feeling a bit threatened.

The ugly "truth" is that anyone can call themselves a journalist... after all, it ain't like being a lawyer or physician, where one needs to be accredited and put letters behind one's name. Credibility, not accreditation, is the standard by which we judge those who take on the profession of journalism, and that credibility is not bestowed from upon high. It cannot simply be taken as a given, it must be earned. That's not up to the reader, folks. That's up to the journalist.

So when journalists wonder how "non-traditional" sources of information could possibly be taken as seriously as their own supposedly "reality-based" reporting they need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. As many in the blogging community see it, one of the reasons that non-MSM (non-Mainstream media) information sources have proliferated is the homogenization of MSM news: Interconnected media-elites, cut from the same J-school cloth and increasingly cut off from the man on the street, are giving us the same story the same way... and from the same point of view: a bland and vaguely self-righteous centre-left perspective.

How does this happen? Maybe today's journalists' first instinct, weaned as they are on Watergate and everything that followed, is to dive head-first into the Government-generated spin to figure out "what is really happening" (i.e. how the public is being lied to). Unfortunately, what they come up with is sometimes equally questionable: received wisdom that they see as "the truth"... Remember the NYT's deliberate revealing of the details of the Treasury Board's Terorist Financing detection program? These damaging revelations were seen as a necessary way of exposing the administration's lies.... when in fact, these "lies" were simple omissions in the name of national security, and keeping this information secret was in no way harming any honest American.

I'm not sure if the problem is the oft-mentioned "liberal media bias" so much as it is that an anti-establishment streak and suspicious nature have been the hallmark of journalists for some time. They all seem to want to be Woodward and Bernstein...even if that means fabricating watergates to fit their worldview.

In the sixties, it was "Don't trust anybody over thirty"... but we have long since truncated that little aphorism. Sometimes this "don't trust anybody" (DTA) mentality can be a good thing... but sometimes, it distorts our picture of what is really happening because we cannot conceive that every so often, our government may have the common good and the public interest as its primary motive.

Ironically, the DTA philosophy is what drives bloggers to question the media elites as much as it drives the media to question the government!