It has been eleven years since investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson first revealed that Barack Obama’s government was illegally spying on her. Although she has pursued the matter doggedly in court, no high-ranking Obama administration officials have ever been held accountable. The incident remains remarkable not only because it laid bare another instance in which Obama’s administration engaged in unlawful, unconstitutional, and unethical conduct (remember when Attorney General Eric Holder got caught arming international drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious for reasons that only he could justify?), but also because the silence from the American press corps was deafening.
There was some platitudinal outrage, to be sure, but if the pre-eminent news organs in the United States had truly wanted to defend free speech from government tyranny, they would have robustly condemned Obama for presiding over an administration at war with the First and Fourth Amendments. They would still be running stories to this day reminding Americans that nobody of consequence from the Obama government has been punished. And they would never stop pointing out that neither Obama nor his lieutenants have ever apologized for their impeachable offenses or naked betrayal of their constitutional oaths. Judged from their tepid response, it would appear that most corporate news reporters tacitly approved of Obama’s government conducting espionage operations against the press — at least so long as the “right kind” of reporters were the ones being targeted.
To the great consternation of the Obama regime and its praetorian press supporters, Sharyl Attkisson has always been an “old school” reporter — which is to say, she follows important news stories wherever they may take her and regardless of how her investigations may affect the political fortunes of those fêted by The New York Times or CNN. With neither fear nor favor, she strives to reveal truth — not her truth or the preferred truth of those who pay her, but the truth. Because she sticks to that journalistic creed, she is a thorn in the side to those with power.
In another time or place that regarded journalistic independence as a requisite safeguard for preserving both free speech and a free press, Attkisson would be admired as an exemplar of her profession. And to those who appreciate her work, she is. But for far too many national reporters who would gladly sacrifice truth for the promise of future prestige, her story is best ignored. Why? Because she is a corporeal reminder that American journalism is fake.
Contrary to the banal assurances that come out of the mouths of intellectual flyweights such as Jim Acosta, reporters regularly do pick sides, omit important facts, and manipulate the coverage of breaking news. Almost all practicing journalists these days are creatures of the left. Fabian socialists, Marxist ideologues, or Democrat partisans — however else they might self-identify, they all view themselves as romantic figures destined to influence history. Who, What, When, Where, and Why are for the schlubs. They are here to engineer narratives, and they take their jobs quite seriously.
“Narrative engineer” is such a perfect sobriquet for today’s reporters. It appeals to their special brand of vanity. Most would love to be known for their literary talents but lack the skill to tell good stories. Most wish others would see them as having the kind of brainpower associated with engineers, but alas, they struggle with basic geometry. Thinking of themselves as master builders of human events allows journalists to carve out a privileged caste for themselves that lies somewhere between that of the academic and the priest. And if anyone honored them as “professors” or bowed deferentially in their presence, members of the journalistic clergy would certainly not object.
This kind of pomposity offends “old school” reporters. In fact, one of the easiest ways to discern whether a journalist is more interested in discovering the truth or engineering a narrative is to look at that person’s bio. “Narrative engineers” love to highlight their journalism degrees, fellowships, exotic assignments, and the list of important corporations that have paid them to say what those corporations need them to say. “Old school” reporters don’t care about telling you where they went to college — or if they even attended one. Rather than refer you to their updated C.V.s, they’d rather let their work product do the talking. They’re not fond of flaunting awards or illustrious former employers because both tend to reflect the mission statements of powerful corporations or wealthy patrons — the exact kinds of groups and people “old school” journos inherently distrust.
Good muckrakers are suspicious of power — in all its forms. If a self-described expert says that something is true, the muckraker says, “Prove it.” If an agent of the government says that something is true, the muckraker says, “Prove it.” If another journalist says that something is true, the muckraker still says, “Prove it.” Neither titles, nor positions of authority, nor membership in the journalistic clergy connotes absolute truth.
In fact, all of those things are red flags to any good reporter. If something is so complicated that its comprehension requires expertise, then it is imperative that dissenting experts be consulted as intellectual counterweights for discovering hidden bias. If a government minister asserts something as true, a reporter must assume that it is false. What good is a Fourth Estate if it does not maintain a position that is in constant tension with — if not diametrically opposed to — all those holding the reins of political power? And when a journalist reports something as truth, the first thought from other journalists must always be: let’s see your sources. Only by knowing who is saying what and why that person is saying it can anyone judge a statement’s veracity. A journalist who accepts another journalist’s recitation of events without first scrutinizing the sources for that information is no journalist at all!