Fighting Politicians' War on Truth

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Hendricks Dewayne <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: September 17, 2016 at 3:52:44 PM EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Fighting Politicians' War on Truth
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> Fighting Politicians' War on Truth
> U.S. journalists have an obligation to call out presidential candidates when they lie.
> By Dan Gillmor
> Sep 16 2016
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/politicians-war-on-truth/500282/>
>
> NBC News’ Matt Lauer’s performance as moderator of a recent public forum featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton 
> has led to some modest journalistic soul-searching. If journalists want the public to retain even an ounce of respect 
> for their craft, they should do more than that—and they should start right now, by declaring a boycott on bullshit.
>
> Lauer, among other things, allowed Trump to lie repeatedly without making much attempt to set the record straight. 
> But Lauer was only doing what so many others have done throughout this political cycle.
>
> His haplessness surely has led the moderators of the upcoming presidential debates to ask themselves how they’ll 
> handle Trump’s proclivity for rapid-fire lying or, for that matter, the more occasional dissembling from Hillary 
> Clinton. Perhaps the debate hosts will emulate what journalists have done in at least some cases: telling their 
> audiences that a candidate is lying, assuming they’ve done enough homework to know. (Fox News’ Chris Wallace has 
> explicitly said he won’t do this.)
>
> The problem is that simply calling out lies is not enough. Once the lie is spoken out loud, even a quick 
> rebuttal—assuming it’s issued on the spot—doesn’t undo all the damage. This is partly because repeating a lie, which 
> is generally part of the debunking process, can reinforce it. Moreover, a phenomenon called confirmation bias leads 
> people who want to believe something to believe it even more after they’ve been shown they’re wrong.
>
> So maybe it’s time for journalists who care to try some new, stronger tactics to fight back against the war on truth 
> that Trump and so many others have been waging this year. Nothing they do is going to fix this problem, but doing 
> more of the same guarantees that nothing will change.
>
>
> For the debates, I’d propose an experiment for a brave TV news channel or website. Put the entire program on a time 
> delay, say 10 minutes. This would give the news channel time to do the following:
>
>    • Have teams of experts on the topics likely to be discussed examine the veracity of candidates’ claims.
>    • If they determine that a candidate is lying, programmers kill the sound going to viewers’ TVs and other screens. 
> While the line can be difficult to draw, I’d do this only for brazen lies—such as Trump’s easily proved lie that he 
> publicly opposed the Iraq War before it started—not standard policy overpromises.
>    • During the silences, of which there would no doubt be many, viewers would see the candidate’s lips moving. But 
> there would be an overlay of text saying, “He’s talking about [insert subject] but making false statements; here’s 
> the truth about this subject: ... ” and so on.
>    • Although the sound would remain on during the can’t-possibly-be-kept promises, another overlay would explain 
> that reality, and why.
>
> There’s more, but those give you the basic idea. The point is not to expose the viewers of that particular forum to 
> the lies in the first place, at least not on first viewing. I take for granted that many viewers would go back and 
> listen to the lies directly. But they’d have some appropriate context even if they did.
>
> Again, this would be an experiment—one of many, I’d hope. Others might include a split screen that denounces the lies 
> on one side immediately after they’re uttered on the other. But that again gives the liars what they want in the 
> first place.
>
> I’m betting that no major TV outlet would entertain any of my suggestions. Ratings are ratings, after all. And the 
> ongoing success of tabloid news is testament to giving the public what it wants: infotainment. Call me old-fashioned. 
> I believe in journalism’s crucial role as a counterbalance to untrammeled power and false propaganda. When 
> journalists see a blatant, systemic dysfunction in American political culture, they have an obligation that 
> transcends money.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20160917160510:05323EF4-7D12-11E6-A38E-8B6B795A1B99
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com