If the media want to regain the public’s trust, they could try not peddling ludicrous fiction.
If the media want to regain the public’s trust, they could try not peddling ludicrous fiction.
A s anyone who has ever been in a relationship can tell you, occasionally saying “I was wrong and I’m sorry” can go a long way. But the media can never say “We’re sorry.” Because then Republicans might pounce.
Consider this chart:
Eleven percent among Republicans? Thirty-one percent among independents? What media executive looks at this chart and doesn’t hear five-alarm sirens going off in his head? Answer: virtually all media executives, because becoming outspoken defenders of the Left has made the media very popular with Democrats, the cosseting and flattering of whom is now most of the media’s chief survival strategy. If no one trusts us except liberals, we’ll only say stuff liberals like to hear!
Does CNN ever apologize for getting it wrong — putting out false or deliberately misleading information — again and again and again and again and again?
(And again and again and again and again?)
(And again and again and again and again and again and again?)
No, CNN simply pretends all of this failure derives from good-faith errors rather than wishcasting and flamboyantly obvious partisan hackery, then dials the whataboutism up to 11.
Last night a hilariously defiant Oliver Darcy, who like his co-worker Brian Stelter overtly espouses left-wing talking points (frequently regurgitating Media Matters posts) in the guise of offering nonpartisan “media reporting,” sent out a furious newsletter suggesting that no one should be mocking the media for its weeks of spectacular failures on the Jussie Smollett hoax. He complains that Sean Hannity, “and other bad faith media personalities on the right, used Smollett’s conviction to (predictably) attack the news media and aim to delegitimize the credibility of the entire press.”
Bad faith? Because the press doesn’t have any other credibility issues? It was just this one little whoopsie, which we all should ignore so as not to hurt the feelings of social-fabric-shredding billion-dollar corporations and their $6 million-a-year talking heads?
“Propagandists,” Darcy continues, “know that their power increases substantially when they can convince their audiences not to trust other sources of information. And so, Smollett’s case is very valuable to them.” Yeah, and you know what might be a solid way to fight off those who say you’re not trustworthy, CNN? Actually being trustworthy. Darcy concludes his snit with the most beautiful piece of Oliver Darcy-ism I’ve ever come across:
When you cannot argue on the facts, it is much easier to dismiss a story in its entirety and go after the credibility of the press for reporting on it. It’s the timeless play — one that played on repeat during the Trump administration . . .
The Smollett story fell apart precisely because of the facts! Arguing the facts is what Smollett’s detractors have been doing since Day One. It is Smollett and his defenders who have been arguing ludicrous fiction, and now that we know the truth, the story therefore should, actually, be “dismiss[ed] in its entirety.” But anyway, what about Trump???
I realize that deciding to issue only true and accurate reports would necessitate a disruptive, indeed revolutionary change at CNN that would begin with the firing of hacks such as Darcy and Stelter, but failing that, CNN could at least apologize for having breathlessly pumped up the Smollett hoax until long after everyone with an IQ above the level of algae had noticed it was fake news. Instead, CNN still employs Don Lemon, who tipped off Smollett that the police were on to him. And it has continued to act as an unpaid outside publicist to Smollett right up to this morning, when it ran the headline “Smollett guilty on some charges,” as though the whole thing is still confusing and nebulous and maybe he’s only kinda guilty?
Jussie Smollett told a story that on January 29, 2019, that seemed far-fetched, raised eyebrows when he refused to allow police to inspect his phone or medical records, altered details in a Valentine’s Day interview with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts, and refused to admit his ruse even after it fell apart later that day, when reports emerged that police had arrested Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo on suspicion of carrying out a phony attack in cahoots with the actor.
Bad things happen every day in America, but the details of this story were really extraordinarily hard to believe, from the day he told it. Who beats up a guy without really beating him up? Who thinks Chicago is “MAGA country”? What dudes roam Chicago with a noose and a bottle of bleach in the dead of winter hoping to run into a black guy so they can gently drape the noose around his neck and run away without so much as taking his cellphone? Smollett is an exceptionally dumb guy who overloaded the fake attack with implausible details, and the everything-is-a-racial-emergency media ran with it. If you don’t have a functioning bushwa detector, you simply shouldn’t be in the media game.
Nevertheless, almost across the board, the media reported it as a fact that Smollett “was attacked,” or attributed this assertion to police, when it was never anything but a dubious assertion by an actor. This is basic, entry-level stuff. I didn’t go to journalism school, but I learned the trade as a news clerk at the New York City bureau of the Associated Press starting in 1992. As soon as I started work delivering mail and printing out stories, I started to internalize an extremely useful phrase uttered many times a day by our wise city editor, the late Jim Fitzgerald: “Says who?” Says who, says who, says who. You can’t say this to yourself often enough when you’re writing up the news. “Jussie Smollett said he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack” would have been a true and accurate report, CNN. Joy Reid. Washington Post.
Simple suggestion to everyone who promoted the hoax: Just say, “I was wrong and I’m sorry.” It’ll be good for you. It’ll be good for America.