sex, lies and the internet

Lies and sex, not to mention lies about sex, are nothing new to the world of politics. Back in 1884, Grover Cleveland’s opponents famously chanted, “Ma, Ma! Where’s my pa?” in hopes that drawing attention to Cleveland’s reported illegitimate child would defeat his run for President.

Sort of what Karl Rove’s minions did to John McCain in 2000; except in the Cleveland case, where the charge was probably true, it didn’t work and in the McCain case, where it most assuredly was a lie, it cost him the primary and probably the election.

Last week the New York Times, a paper I love and rely upon and one that is held in great esteem by professional journalists around the world, ran a story about McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist a few years back.

A female lobbyist, the item noted, going on to say that “convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him.”

What bothered me, and many others, about the story was the way it was received, which of course resulted from the way it was presented.

The substance of the Times story was to call into question McCain’s sincerity in opposing lobbyists’ influence while under the influence of at least one lobbyist himself. But you can guess what the TV news shows, pundits and wall-to-wall talk shows picked up, and you’re right: The sex angle, complete with a photo of the very attractive lady lobbyist, stunningly decked out in evening attire.

I believe it was a newsworthy story, with or without with an extra dollop of drama; I just think the romantic angle itself warranted waiting until the reporters had indisputable evidence because they could have anticipated that sex rather than lobbying might become the story.

As it turned out, the New York Times became the story because they published it, and on page one, and now everyone’s attention is somewhat diverted from the seriousness of the matter alleged.

In the last dozen years, sex and lies have been joined by the Internet as weapons of choice in political struggles.

To be sure, there are great enhancements to public discourse in the incredible amount of information that’s available to anyone with access to the Internet, and the value to candidates who want to get their messages out and bring in contributions is, well, immeasurable.

But the use of the Internet for mischief has, sadly, become almost an institution in our politics. For those who would destroy a candidate for public office by publishing lies, it’s a piece of cake now: easy anonymity, free distribution to the entire world if one so chooses, and of course the liberty we enjoy to speak freely and say just about anything.

A couple of months ago I wrote about an Internet rumor that had been circulating for well over a year; I pointed out that it may have originated with Insight Magazine, a Washington Times (that would be Rev. Moon, of course) publication, but if not then certainly it was given a significant boost from there through the Fox news network and onto the Internet.

The rumor, about Barack Obama, was reported on and thoroughly debunked repeatedly in the mainstream media, then and since, but like those trick candles we all hate it just keeps on keepin’ on.

Last week, the Fort Worth Star Telegram reported that Barack Obama, again, “is the subject of a shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet that falsely suggests he's a Muslim intent on destroying the United States. Obama is a Christian and has been fighting the e-mail hoax, which also claims he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and he's been trying to correct the misinformation.” Link.

Those emails also claim that Obama took the oath of office with one hand on the Koran, obviously confusing him with Congressman Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, an African-American who actually is a Muslim and who did take his oath of office upon a copy of the Koran. (A copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson, by the way.)

The Star-Telegram also reported that Obama, at last week’s rally in Austin, addressed the issue head-on:

“Well, I've been going to the same Christian church, praying to Jesus for the last 20 years. So don't insult me, and don't insult the Muslims.”

I find even more distressing than the non-ending clearly questionable rumors and lies the fact that some people are apparently willing to believe them. Anyone accessing the World Wide Web knows – or should know – about web sites like snopes.com, which check the truthfulness of Internet rumors.

Freedom From Misinformation

The proliferation of blogs — do-it-yourself “journalism” on the internet, by anyone with the wit to use a computer (and some with only that) — and the ability to generate a flood of emails at the drop of a “SEND” button have brought the art of whisper campaign to a new level. Everyone gets to play, but the game afoot is not fun or funny and can be devastating.

When John Kennedy ran for President in 1960 an anonymous telephone call was making the rounds: “Here’s to the three K’s — Kennedy, Catholicism and Communism!” Lovely KKK subtext, right? Or perhaps the caller’s spelling skills were to blame, but the message was clear.

In the early spring of 2000, John McCain, an altogether honorable person considered by some to be a hero, was doing very well in the Republican primaries. Most respectable journalists and political operatives agree that it was Karl Rove who arranged for a telephone campaign of gossip against McCain that most of said journalists and politically savvy folks blame for his loss to George Bush in South Carolina, an event that may well have affected the history of America.

Now it is much easier, takes very little time, and costs nothing to whisper dirt to prospective voters, and someone opposed to Barack Obama’s run for the presidency began a while back to do just that. It’s not clear which came first, the emails or the article in Insight Magazine, a Washington Times (think Reverend Moon) publication, but that’s all it took to permeate the internet and leap onto Fox News.

Last week, the Washington Post published a story about it all.

Now, even though the rumors the Post chose to publish may not have warranted publication as news, it can be argued that sometimes the truth isn’t as evident as we would like, and if a reporter feels obliged to dig deep into a rumor in search of truth he may well find something interesting. (On the other hand, if we examine our tap water with a microscope we might forswear the drink forever rather than ingest the wildlife therein.) In any case, the reporter must likewise feel obliged to use judgment, or at least some common sense, in deciding whether it has value.

Given the easy fact-checking available to just about anyone, especially a reporter for a major newspaper with access to Lexis-Nexis, it is hard to justify the perpetuation of any rumor. Heck, even snopes.com had the Obama lies nailed a year ago.

I won’t deny it might be newsworthy to say “there’s this falsehood being spread by so-and-so, and we have checked and determined its origin and the apparent reason behind it,” but the Washington Post made it a front-page story, spending some 1500 words to tell us it about a rumor promulgated by Obama’s enemies.

(In fact, it turned into a two-fer for the political right, which claimed that Hillary Clinton was behind it!)

Rumor and innuendo have become too influential in our lives, notwithstanding the amusement provided by misbehaving glamour-girls whose function in society seems to be just that. The line between news we need and innuendo is hard to fathom, just when it is so important that we get it right — as in a presidential campaign — and I believe it is the responsibility of every reporter to unblur that line.

That includes getting rid of “gotcha” journalism on televised interviews, usually starring the famous-journalist-as-Perry Mason, more interested in demonstrating how cleverly and in how many ways he can posit a question that still won’t be answered if the subject chooses not to. There is no discovery here, no illumination for the viewer, just the impression that information has been gleaned when in fact only inferences may be drawn from nothing more than implications. It has been reported that if we ask you whether you’ve stopped beating your wife, sir, you’ll deny that you ever did. Do you care to comment?

The question of how to approach and report news is as old as the business itself. A cigar-chomping old-school city editor, under whose tutelage I suffered awhile, insisted on the importance of the right “lede” — the opening sentence of a story — to insure that the reader will be interested enough to read the whole story. He was right. But a lede, or a headline for that matter, can also set the stage, or mood, or predisposition of the reader/viewer to interpret the whole story in a certain way.

In the Washington Post report, the headline was: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him. Later in the piece, the reporter wrote: “Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a ‘Muslim plant’ in a conspiracy against America,” and then, still later, “The rumors about Obama have been echoed on Internet message boards and chain e-mails.”

Conspicuously missing: Even one sentence stating that the reporter had checked the story and determined it to be completely unfounded. It wasn’t until a post-publication exchange with critics that he used the word “falsehood.” Rumor 1, Truth 0.

Another tough question: When shall we report the news in an historical context that may well leave the reader/viewer with a different impression than if we had reported just the facts of a given event?

If, for example, when reporting that in 2003 Rudy Giuliani married his longtime girlfriend, it would not be appropriate to dig up and publish information about his previous marriage or even marriages, unless it is information clearly related to his qualifications to be president. Knowing that Judi Nathan was his girlfriend a long time before Rudy told his wife, indirectly by way of press conference, that he wanted a divorce, might provide relevant information about his character.

Finally, an issue that still drives me wild: Shall the interviewer let stand a comment by his subject that he knows or suspects to be untrue?

Leaving unchallenged some assertion that the reporter knows to be based on misinformation or, in some cases, an outright lie, allows the statement to live on in the final publication or broadcast, there to become part of the information passed on to the public. It seems to me that in these cases the reporter has at least a responsibility to ask, “Can you prove that? Please tell me where our viewers/readers can confirm that.”

If all else fails, then the reporter, interviewer or editor may still employ the time-honored tradition of the editorial comment, to foil mendacious mischief-makers. Wild accusations should never be allowed to stand.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed by our Constitution, and is critical to the preservation of our democracy. It seems self-evident to me that journalists or editors who recognize an item incorrectly offered as “fact” — whether simply mistaken or mean-spirited in origin — have an obligation to prevent its dissemination or perpetuation and to intercept and reveal untruths.

It takes two to speak the truth — one to speak, and another to hear. - Thoreau