The Fourth Estate

I haven't posted in a while, but I would like to take the time to address an issue that has been jabbing into my gut recently.

The news media has taken a great many liberties over the years. How many of us would really be all that surprised to hear that one of the vaunted reporters had made an error, and that by doing so, drew an inaccurate conclusion? Basically, that is a tactful way of saying, would anyone be surprised if it turned out that one or all of them didn't know what they were talking about?

I very much doubt it. What concerns me, though, is their claim to some form of higher justice. "We are in the business of reporting the news." Isn't that what they say? Interesting that there is no mention of truth. The only requisite is that the story garners interest.

So, how can they honestly say that they are the People's Voice? How can they say that they represent the interests of the "Common Man" when they are not held accountable for their foibles?

Oh, and where in the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution of the United States does it give the press the esteemed position of watchdogging the government? Last I checked, there were three pillars in our governmental structure, not four.

The Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the Constitution. What this means is that no charges can be brought against the press for presenting a dissenting article that refutes what is released by the government. There were once even laws that required that the information be factual.

Do you want to know why? Ever hear of the term "Yellow Journalism"? Dictionary.com provides the following definition:

yellow journalism n. Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.

I don't know the origin of the phrase, but I can tell you where I first heard it. It was in U.S. History, back in Middle School. What they were talking about were two of the most embarassing moments of our governmental history. Because of public misunderstanding and outrage that was a direct result of unethical reporting practices, the U.S. Government did two things.

1. They entered into a conflict that is remembered today as the Spanish/American War. The press reported that the ship that blew up was attacked and sunk. Forensic evidence later confirmed that the explosion came from INSIDE the vessel, not outside.
2. They unlawfully, and without invitation, annexed the Hawaiian Archipelago, believing the papers when they said that a majority of the inhabitants of those islands wished for it to happen.

I am quite certain that many, if not all, of the people that read this can come up with even more examples of this manner of reporting, but, following the findings after the Spanish/American War, the goverment set down guidelines for honest and ethical reporting.

In their need to keep readership, the Major News Networks and Publications could not allow their most effective weapon, sensationalism, to be taken from them. Lobbying considerable pressure and finacial support, they were able to either get the restrictions removed, or lightened.

The end of honest and ethical reporting was heralded by the courts deciding back in the 1980's that the reporters did not have to reveal their C.I.'s (confidential informants) identities. I honestly think that they snuck that one in under the radar when the law enforcement agencies were lobbying to protect their own, but whether or not this was so does not change the result.

Today, the only accountability that a reporter must worry about is to their editor. A simple retraction can forgive many an inaccuracy, and the government wouldn't DARE interfere. Can you say, "Censorship"?

I don't know that there is any easy or good fix to this problem, but one needs to be found. The days when we, as a people and as a nation, can be lead around unquestioningly by the nose by someone whose sole purpose is to sell papers instead of reporting the truth should be long gone.

If they aren't, well, then we are not nearly as civilized as we claim to be, are we?