Does Journalism Die Today?

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocket book is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends. – excerpt, Walter William's Journalist's Creed

Update: I just got off the phone with Sylvia Smith, National Press Club President. Our exchange at the end of the story.

This is going to be a tough story to write, because it is about something that isn't a news story, that I can't tell you about. Others in the political blogosphere have taken the bait, and publicized it in the name of quashing it. I will take great pains not to do that. I will give only the level of detail that has already been revealed by the national media.

A press conference is to be held today at the National Press Club, and the subject of that press conference is a proven liar, with no claim to personal credibility, who will make ruinous allegations against a presidential candidate. The fate of the profession of journalism may hang on whether anyone shows up, and what, if anything, they report.

If you value truth, and more than that, the protection of our citizens against attack by falsehoods, please forward this story to the editors of your local newspapers and TV stations. This plea is directed at them.

I spoke with the National Press Club's General Manager, Bill McCarren this morning, and while he claims no responsibility for the Club, he correctly asserts the duty of every journalist to report only that which is ethical to do so.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

As for the National Press Club, I am trying to find out just what their defense of their actions is. The claim that they are simply renting a room doesn't really fly. If McDonald's rented part of their counter to me to sell Shitburgers, you can bet their reputation would suffer. The National Press Club is not a bed and breakfast. Here's an abridged version of my exchange with Bill McCarren:

Tommy Christopher: It is my understanding that the NPC claims no endorsement of, nor responsibility for, this event, beyond renting the space. Is that correct?

Bill McCarren: We didn't invite him, it is a paid news conference. We are not giving him a forum, like all the bloggers are saying.

TC: Are room rentals available only to members? Members get a discount. So, anyone who wants to can rent the room?

BM: No, not necessarily...

TC: Then there is a set of standards? Can you tell me what those are?

BM: That's where I think I'll have to not comment, and refer you to Sylvia Smith.

TC: The event details posted on your homepage, which include offers of fact, contain no disclaimer on the front page, and after the jump, a disclaimer of the event only (not the statements in the event details). Who, then, is responsible for those offers of fact on your homepage? How is a visitor to your site to discern this?

BM: I think it's pretty clear who this comes from, their names and phone number are on there. Journalism begins when reporters decide whether to show up and report on something, not when someone decides to hold a press conference.

I have contacted Sylvia Smith, the National Press Club's President, to follow up, and am awaiting a response.

Journalism has taken a lot of hits over the years, but never more than during this presidential campaign. From trying to force Hillary Clinton out of the race just before the New Hampshire Primary, to introducing a smear against Barack Obama as fact during a live debate, to leveling amorphous, very poorly sourced sexual innuendo at John McCain, shoddy journalism has been rampant.

It seems that nowadays, when the noise level of a story reaches a certain level outside of journalism, there is always someone in the media ready to invite it in, regardless of its merit. The Reverend Wright "scandal" springs to mind. The question in that case was not the truth of the story, but whether or not it really was a story. No presidential candidate that I'm aware of had ever been forced to answer for comments made by a tangential figure, outside his presence, and had the results given the weight of stone tablets. The din from partisan opponents forced this to the journalist's table, and the assemblage eventually dug hungrily in, using the justification that "inquiring minds want to know."

This is a different case, entirely. The mere fact that an accusation is made is not news. If it were, our newspapers would be black with the ink of fantasies spun from the minds of the million attention-seekers and disconnected obsessives that populate our country.

The credibility of the accusation must be assessed, and if it passes certain tests, it may be permissable to report it. The extremely prejudicial nature of the allegation means that it must meet a very high bar for credibility and corroboration.

For example, if I were to accuse Hillary Clinton of stealing two dollars from me, that would not be news. If I pointed out that she and I were both at the Park Hyatt in Philadelphia on April 22, 2008, it is still not news. If I show a photograph of my $2-containing wallet, then a shot of my empty wallet, followed by a picture of Hillary Clinton brandishing two dollar bills, it is still not news. Even if the photos are so clear, you can make out that the serial numbers on the bills match, still not news.

Why is that? I have my own statement, supported by facts, corroborated by photographic evidence. When asked about it, other attendees would likely say, "I don't know fact positive if she stole his $2, but I don't think she did."

A-ha! There are no witnesses, out of hundreds, who can refute my claim! Should Hillary Clinton be forced to answer for this? Of course not.

Had that story been written, the average person would go away thinking, "Hmmm. Maybe she did take that guy's $2." Hillary Clinton would have no legal redress against the journalist in question, and little chance at a remedy against me.

That is what journalistic ethics are for, to protect the public from misinformation.

So, I ask every journalist out there to be extra-critical in your thinking today. The reporting by the blogosphere and by MSNBC has already elevated this well beyond where it should be.

We carry, with us, a responsibility greater than some abstract oath or credo. The ghosts of every martyr to truth watches over us, from the hundreds of thousands of dead in Rwanda, slaughtered on page 12 of our newspapers, to Stephen Biko, whose death, and the reporting of it, helped to end the oppression of his brothers and sisters. Try to remember that today, and every day, when you decide what is, and is not, a story. The stakes are too high not to.

Update: I just got off the phone with Sylvia Smith, National Press Club President. We had a very animated, 15 minute exchange. She was very generous with her time.

On the issue of whether anyone with the money to can rent a room at the Press Club, she let me know that, beyond practical considerations like security, yes. "We do not have a litmus test on content for potential customers."

She reminded me several times during our conversation, as McCarren did, that it is the journalist's responsibility to determine newsworthiness.

When I asked about the information in the "Event Details" posted on their homepage, she said, "That is a service that we offer to our customers, they may pay extra to have their event announced on our front page, but that's not promoting it. We do not endorse and did not invite (this customer)."

When I asked about the offer of fact in the bulletin, she was not aware that the specific allegations were posted on it, only the subject of the press conference. I read it to her. Our exchange, abridged for repetition:

Tommy Christopher: So, are you saying that, as long as a customer can pay, you will print whatever they want you to?

Sylvia Smith: No, I won't say that...

Tommy Christopher: Then what is the line?

Sylvia Smith: We've never encountered this situation before...I am not in a position to make policy on the fly for the club.

Tommy Christopher: OK, fair enough, is this something that you'll look into in the future?

Sylvia Smith: (It) will be discussed on a lot of levels at the Press Club.

I sympathize with the Press Club's position. This is an obvious attempt by a bad actor to exploit the club's reputation. While you might not like it, they really have no means or right to control what is said at a press conference on their grounds. It is the job of journalists to vet that.

I still think that the contents of that bulletin are problematic, but if they've never had to vet for content before, how could they be expected to in this case?

This is the real shame here, because I think that was the real prize. That bulletin has been copied and pasted around the web, and used to give this story the veneer of legitimacy. This idiot could have shot his mouth off anywhere, but here, he gets to have his story printed on a respected web page.

If the hoardes of bloggers had focused on this, instead of the rental of the room, the Press Club might have had time to evaluate the bulletin and do something about it.


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!