http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/02/14/journalism
Monday, Feb 14, 2011 06:15 ET
Salon.com
Journalists angry over the commission of journalism
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below)
Over the weekend, The Los Angeles' Times James Rainey mocked CNN's
Anderson Cooper for repeatedly using the word "lie" to describe the
factually false statements of Egyptian leaders. Though Rainey
ultimately concluded that "it's hard to find fault with what Cooper had
to say" -- meaning that everything Cooper identified as a "lie" was, in
fact, a "lie" -- the bulk of Rainey's column derided the CNN anchor for
his statements ("Cooper's accusations of 'lies' and 'lying' got so
thick on Wednesday's show that the host seemed to be channeling comic
(and now U.S. Sen.) Al Franken's 2003 book, 'Lies and the Lying Liars
Who Tell Them'"). Rainey also suggested that the harsh denunciations
of Mubarak's false statements were merely part of "Cooper's pronounced
shift toward more opinion-making in recent months . . . trying to adopt
the more commentary-heavy approach of [CNN's] higher-rated competitors,
Fox and MSNBC." To Rainey, when a journalist calls a government lie a
"lie," that's veering into "commentary-heavy opinion-making" rather
than objective journalism (h/t Mediaite).
Yesterday, Cooper's CNN colleague, media critic Howard Kurtz, sounded
the same criticism but went even further. On his Reliable Sources
program, Kurtz showed a video clip of Cooper and then posed the
following question to guest Christopher Dickey of Newsweek:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: What we heard were the same lies we've heard
from [Mubarak] and his regime for more than two weeks now. What we
heard is a man who clearly believes that he is Egypt. He kept
repeating this lie that this is all some sort of foreign
interference.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Chris Dickey, Anderson Cooper repeatedly
using the word lies. Now I think most journalists would agree with
him, perhaps most Americans would agree with him. But should an
anchor and correspondent be taking sides on this kind of story?
To Kurtz, when a journalist accurately points out that a powerful
political leader is lying, that's "taking sides," a departure from
journalistic objectivity, something improper. In reply, Dickey agreed
with that assessment, noting that "part of the soul of [Cooper's] show
is to take sides" and be "committed to a certain vision of the story."
Like Rainey, Dickey was forced to acknowledge that all of the
statements Cooper identified as "lies" were actually lies, and thus
magnanimously decreed: "I think Anderson can be forgiven for using
that word in that context." Kurtz then patronizingly noted: "And of
course, Anderson Cooper was repeatedly punched in the head when he was
covering the demonstrations" -- as though his departure from good
journalistic objectivity can at least be understood here (though of
course not justified) because of the emotional trauma he suffered.
Rainey, Kurtz and Dickey all have this exactly backwards. Identifying
lies told by powerful political leaders -- and describing them as such
-- is what good journalists do, by definition. It's the crux of
adversarial journalism, of a "watchdog" press. "Objectivity" does not
require refraining from pointing out the falsity of government claims.
<snip>
This warped reasoning is one of the prime diseases plaguing
establishment political journalism in the U.S. Most establishment
journalists are perfectly willing to use the word "lie" for powerless,
demonized or marginalized people, but they genuinely believe that it is
an improper breach of journalistic objectivity to point out when
powerful political officials are lying. They adamantly believe that
such an activity -- which is a core purpose of political journalism --
is outside the purview of their function. The one who put this best
was NBC News' David Gregory when he vigorously defended the American
media from criticisms (voiced at the time by former Bush Press
Secretary Scott McClellan) that they failed to do their job in the
run-up to the Iraq War:
I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did
not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are
you doing this, that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree.
It's not our role.
That these establishment journalists believe that pointing out the lies
of powerful political leaders is "not their role" -- indeed, is a
violation of the rules that govern what they do -- explains a large
part of the failings of both America's media class and its political
class. Ironically, David Gregory is ultimately right that doing this
is "not his role"; he's not paid by NBC News and its owners to alert
the American citizenry to lies told by the U.S. Government (i.e., he's
not paid to be an adversarial journalist). He's there to do the
opposite: to vest those lies with respect and depict them as
reasonable statements to be subjectively considered along with the
truth. But it's in these moments when they are so candid about what
their actual role is -- or when they attack people like Cooper for the
rare commission of actual journalism -- that they are at their most
(unintentionally) informative.
All this said, I'd be much more impressed with Cooper if he used such
language for the lies told by American political leaders (rather than
reviled, weakened Middle East dictators on their way out of power). As
journalist and Communications Professor Marc Cooper told Rainey:
But it begs a monster question: Is CNN permitted to call only
foreign leaders liars? How refreshing it would be to see that same
piercing candor directed at American politicians when they overtly
lie.
Had Anderson Cooper used such harsh language to describe the statements
of someone universally despised in American mainstream political
circles (an American Enemy -- such as, say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo
Chavez), it would likely have gone unnoticed. But here, Cooper used
such language to condemn one of America's closest and most cherished
allies, and it was thus gently deemed a departure from journalistic
propriety. But had Cooper said such things about a leading American
political official, then a true journalistic scandal would have
erupted. Declaring the statements of an American political leader to
be a lie is one of the most rigidly enforced taboos in American
journalism. That this hallmark of real journalism is strictly
prohibited -- "It's not our role," explained the Meet the Press host --
tells one all there is to know about the function which most
establishment journalists fulfill.
UPDATE: To be clear -- in response to a few comments and emails: the
important point is not whether something is labeled a "lie" -- whether
that word is used (although it should be when appropriate and clear);
what matters is that factually false statements are clearly designated
and documented as such, not treated as merely "one side of the story"
deserving neutral and respectful airing on equal footing with the
truth.
-- Glenn Greenwald