Dear Mr. Brisbane,
You asked the provocative question, "Should Reporters be Truth Vigilantes?" a question that you feel was greatly misunderstood. Here are some fundamentals as to why the answer should be a resounding yes, and why it is highly disturbing to hear the question asked.
In a democracy the people make decisions, and they need a full and free press to have the information to make those decisions in a meaningful way. The press serves as a check on the powers of government.
Our democratic republic is in danger of being corrupted. We now have huge corporate entities who underwrite politicians, create and underwrite puppet think tanks and policy institutes, maintain enormous lobbying forces, and - by means of phony think-tanks, quasi-academic shills, and unrelenting floods of propaganda, simply overwhelm the public with messages that are unproven, unchecked, tendentious, and often outright deceptions. Many media outlets are now not just overwhelmed but literally cowed by money from the inside, a process hastened by media consolidation. The free press serving as a check on government and politicians has become a quaint antiquitous notion.
Let us engage in just a brief thought experiment. Let us assume that a major industry group sees a profit motive in the idea that the earth is flat and decides to spend billions to flood the airwaves with flat earth messages, creates think tanks of fake academics spewing forth papers. After years they actually move public opinion to a position that the view that the earth is round is merely a theory and has not yet been conclusively proven, and that much round-earth research is corrupt, falsified, and wrong-headed. The proponents of flat earth gain traction in many parts of the country with slogans like "Up is up and down is down, you can't fool me!" and attack round earth views as "moral relativism that has contributed to the decay of the nation!" This group then underwrites a flat-earth presidential candidate to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars.
The flat-earth candidate gives speeches to hundreds of enthusiastic and cheering crowds, most of them paid for and arranged by the industry group, creating some national interest in the candidate. How should a speech by this candidate be reported? Should it be Version A or Version B?
Version A:
Flat earth candidate Miller gave a rousing speech in Fargo, ND, where he noted the horizon was so straight there is no question the earth is flat, and degenerate city people who live on welfare and deal drugs would do well and come out here and actually see a horizon and that "the good people here would be glad to show them what real American life is like!" He received thunderous applause.
Version B
Flat earth candidate Miller gave a rousing speech in Fargo, ND, where he noted the horizon was so straight there is no question the earth is flat, and degenerate city people who live on welfare and deal drugs would do well and come out here and actually see a horizon and that "the good people here would be glad to show them what real American life is like!" He received thunderous applause. He did not address the fact that the round earth view has been the scientific consensus since the middle ages, that the flat earth view is not a coherent scientific view, and that there is no reason to believe that city dwellers use drugs any more than anyone else. The reference to "city dwellers" and drug use was a not-so veiled reference to minorities and an apparent appeal to prejudice.
So, Mr. Brisbane, which version tells the truth, Version A or Version B? Which version accepts and carries out the responsibility of a free press in a democracy as established in the Constitution of the United States? Which version do you want to print and then go home and tell your children that you are a journalist working in an honorable profession?
Which version, Sir, fulfills your responsibility to your fellow citizens?
Years ago the case of Kitty Genovese shook the city of New York and created an entire field of research in psychology and sociology, the phenomenon of bystander apathy. Kitty Genovese was brutally attacked and killed as apartment dwellers looked on and let it happen, not intervening, not calling the police, not rescuing the victim, not stopping the horrifying brutality. Research would later indicate that bystander apathy ("don't get involved!") was a unique social phenomenon, with many bystanders wanting to get involved but being held back by the fact that others are doing nothing. Today there is a new element, fear of retribution and revenge.
Today's level of reporting, today's standards of political journalism, reflects such bystander apathy and fear. Journalists report on the specific and literal event but don't want to get involved in any controversy. They have been cowed. They are afraid of being tangled up and becoming the targets of fake think tanks, phony policy institutes, Brooks Brothers riot mobs, or a friendly behind-the-scenes phone call from one CEO to another that brings them the pink slip.
And so it has come to this: to stand up and report the truth all the time and every time, you must be ready for war, you must be fanatical, you must indeed be a "truth vigilante!" And that, Mr. Brisbane, is the real truth that you let slip out.