Who’s Watching the Watchdogs? 567.5
A cynic once observed: “The secret to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” In the cynic’s world, being believable is more important than being truthful.
Thus, credibility – the capacity to inspire trust in our words – is a vital asset, whether or not it’s earned.
Authentic credibility, however, isn’t about fooling people into believing you; it’s about being worthy of belief. This requires not only sincerity but objectivity, the ability and willingness to form and express honest judgments unaffected by emotions, prejudices, or personal interests.
The credibility of an umpire, judge, or restaurant critic, for example, depends on our confidence that they will call it as they see it, letting the chips fall where they may. The credibility of TV commentators who express personal opinions also depends on sincerity and objectivity, especially when they speak on matters beyond the knowledge of the average person.
A few years ago, it was a big scandal when syndicated columnist and TV host Armstrong Williams sold his credibility by accepting thousands of dollars from, of all places, the Department of Education to convince his audiences that the No Child Left Behind Act was a good thing.
Recently, The New York Times published an exhaustively researched 7,000-word investigative article revealing reasons to doubt the objectivity, and perhaps the sincerity, of most of the military analysts on network and cable television who give their views on our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The undisputed (to my knowledge) essence of the article is that the experts are part of a massive Pentagon public-relations program designed to produce a cadre of credible sources who will promote favorable perspectives.
It’s troubling to discover the heavy hand of the Pentagon shaping public opinion with what amounts to a propaganda campaign, but the complicity of major television networks in parading covert PR agents of the government is even more distressing – as is the failure of the rest of the media to give this story the attention it deserves.
Who’s watching the watchdogs?
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Comments
For the first time since I've been listening/reading your comments for years, Michael, I really feel the need to remark on this particular comment.
Our news outlets, our major sources of news today, are all partisan. The two 'Times' publications on both coasts are liberal propaganda machines. The most successful talk radio programs are deeply conservative. You can NOT TRUST CNN, and Fox is certainly not as fair and balanced as it purports to be. Schools are liberal and business is conservative. Presentation makes 'news' credible these days and sound bites are all that's repeated at the water cooler and in homes. Information posted on the Net gets instant credibility and journalism, true journalism, is backed by what sells instead of what is the fact. "Who watches the watchers" you ask? How about "Who has the courage to stand up for a cause and take debate honestly, addressing the question and not the person?" Who has the courage to report the news purely, regardless of ratings? Who will bring journalism, real honest journalism, back to a news SERVICE instead of building a news SHOW?
I WANT TO KNOW.
I WANT TO READ/WATCH THAT.
I WOULD SUPPORT THAT NEWS SERVICE.
I WOULD RESPECT THAT NEWS SERVICE.
Michael, I look forward to your response.
David
Posted by: David H | May 22, 2008 10:24 PM
THANK YOU for having the courage to do the right thing by printing this column. It's painful to see our nation being manipulated -- by the Pentagon, by Big Business, etc. -- and the people (largely ignorant to the true motives behind what they're seeing/ reading) falling for it.
And heaven help the person who criticizes the moral ground for this war -- or warns about the expected outcome of this war -- because we're so "conditioned" by the Pentagon and Big Business (which includes the media) that you can't criticize the WAR without being accused of not supporting the SOLDIERS.
Bless the soldiers for doing what THEY believe to be right. But I pray for their safety, their mental and physical health, and a speedy end to this unjust war.
THANK YOU, again, Michael, for publishing this article.
Posted by: J Rosenberry | May 23, 2008 6:50 AM
In our everyday professional and personal lives, crediblity is MUCH more complicated. I believe part of being credible is being able to perceive how you are being perceived. It's human nature to refuse negativity. Too often the 'cold hard facts' are seen as negative and the subject matter (the facts) are lost.
By all means, I am NOT suggesting facts should be 'sugar-coated'; I am merely suggesting that, in my opinion, TACT is a huge part of being credible and we should all be mindful of HOW we communicate as well as WHAT we communicate.
Posted by: Sandi | May 23, 2008 8:49 AM
Dear Mr. Josephson,
I would doubt the objectivity and sincerity of the New York Times before I would doubt the military analysts on the networks or cable television.
The New York Times, its editor, publisher, and various reporters, by their constant & callous disregard for our national security are the best argument one could have for the passage of an Official Secrets Act similar to the one that exists in Great Britain.
They are determined to undermine our security interests and make their point even when it endangers the rest of us as when they revealed the government's covert operation tracking terrorist funding. They are an immoral group of left wing idealogues more interested in making the news as opposed to reporting it. At the very least they are guilty of sedition while seeking the protection of freedom of speech.
Almost every opinion they print encourages our enemies, discourages our friends, harms our national security, and misleads the public they claim to be so zealously serving. The entire organization is a danger to our republic and has become a national disgrace. One might as well get one's news from Al Jezeera.
Posted by: Paul Schnee | May 23, 2008 11:47 AM
Mr. Josephson:
I read today's pieces both about "winning being everything" and "who's watching the watchdogs".
I just finished reading Upton Sinclairs novel "Oil", the loose basis for the film "There Will Be Blood". While the book's revelations about corrupt politicians, selective press reporting, and college athletes receiving special treatment are not especially revealing, the fact that the book was written in 1926 was. I now find the idea of corruption, a complicit press, and sham "student athletes" less troubling than the fact that there apparently is something within our culture that necessitates this.
Posted by: glenn egelko | May 23, 2008 2:14 PM