The Crisis in Journalism Is Here

 

Back in the early 1980’s two budding disasters were about to hit the media world — my career in television and the arrival of the personal computer. The first disaster was mitigated to a great degree but the second one is just now beginning to hit its stride. Let me explain.

One of the first things I did upon graduating with a degree in Mass Media was to purchase a subscription to Broadcasting magazine (now rebranded as Broadcasting & Cable) In the back section on electronic journalism in one issue was an article I remember as being titled, “The Coming Crisis in Journalism.” The author cautioned that digital compositing of images was going to reach a point where even the most cynical and demanding journalist could be duped into running a story that simply wasn’t true because he couldn’t deny the images he was being shown by a source.

In the late ’80s the Knoll brothers, Thomas (a Ph.D. student at Michigan) and John (a pioneer in image manipulation at Industrial Light and Magic), created Image-Pro, a set of computer tools that would eventually emerge commercially as Photoshop when they sold the idea to Adobe Software. But the “coming crisis” would prove slow in coming.

It wasn’t until home computer equipment became powerful enough to replicate the things folks were seeing in the movies that the real mischief was about to begin. Suddenly kids (and I do mean kids) were doing things in the basement that would have taken millions of dollars to pull off just a decade earlier. And not just in photography and graphic arts but in video as well.

Which brings us to today and the Age of Trump.

Donald Trump is an essential part of this equation, primarily because he is the most reviled political figure since Richard Nixon. Whereas George W. Bush had his share of lunatic detractors on the fringes of the far left, Trump has made the lunatics mainstream, not only on the left but on the right as well because he has upended decades of conservative dogma.

Bury My Heart on the Dakota Pipeline Access Project

Here’s the most recent example. When the President ordered a reversal of his predecessor’s decision not to build the Dakota Access Pipeline, someone took a publicity still from the 2007 HBO movie Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, cropped it, digitally added snow and haybales and announced to the world that the Feds and local LEOs were burning down the encampments set up by Native American protesters.

It was a little too clumsy. Not many professional journalists bit on that one but it still was widely shared on social media by the people who truly wanted to believe it was true.

One bit of fakery that was picked up originated with the husband and wife film making team of Laura Moss and Brendan O’Brien. Using public domain footage they created two “commercials” for the non-existent campaign of the President’s father for New York City mayor. After they were uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo, independent producer Devin Landin shared them on Facebook with the following description, “See if you can catch all the subtle allusions in this ad for Fred Trump. (Spoiler: they’re not subtle at all!) What is it they say about apples and trees and distance?”

Hillary Clinton’s rabid chihuahua, Sidney Blumenthal ran with it from there. Writing in The London Review of Books, Blumenthal wrote:

In 1969, Fred Trump plotted to run for mayor of New York against John Lindsay, a silk-stocking liberal Republican. The reason was simple: in the wake of a New York State Investigations Commission inquiry that uncovered Fred’s overbilling scams, the Lindsay administration had deprived him of a development deal at Coney Island. He made two test television commercials. One of them, called ‘Dope Man’, featured a drug-addled black youth wandering the streets. ‘With four more years of John Lindsay,’ the narrator intoned, ‘he will be coming to your neighbourhood soon.’ The ad flashed to the anxious faces of two well-dressed white women. ‘Vote for Fred Trump. He’s for us.’ The other commercial, ‘Real New Yorkers’, showed scenes of ‘real’ people from across the city, all of them white. Fred Trump, the narrator said, ‘is a real New Yorker too’. In the end he didn’t run, but his campaign themes were bequeathed to his son.

The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler, the man who writes their “Fact Checker” column shared them on Twitter until someone pointed out an anachronism in the videos. Supposedly produced in 1969 they carried “Paid For” disclaimers not in use until the early part of the 21st Century.

The London Review of Books deleted the reference in Blumenthal’s essay and put in this “correction”:

A paragraph referring to Fred Trump’s campaign for mayor of New York, although it accurately reflected Trump’s racial attitudes and his hostility towards Mayor John Lindsay, has been removed because the campaign ads referred to appear to be clever fakes.

Oh, my. They went full Dan Rather there, didn’t they? “Fake” but “accurate.”

Daniel Payne, writing in The Federalist, recently listed 16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won, which includes stories that were even repeated on this website.

Which brings me back to the Ivanka Trump/Nordstroms controversy from earlier this week. Two Wall Street Journal reporters wrote that it was purely a business decision and that was backed up by internal Nordstrom documents. Since no one from Nordstrom actually commented on the record, how did these reporters verify the provenance of these documents? Even if they had seen previous examples (that are no doubt computer-generated in the first place) would they know false documents if they saw them? Probably not. But because it ran in the Journal no one stops and asks if it’s true. I’m not saying that is or isn’t. But it was a single-sourced story and the track record of the truth is getting poorer and poorer. So, don’t disparage me if I take anything and everything with a grain of salt. No. These days I usually need a salt block.

It’s getting harder and harder to kick in the needed amnesia to believe anything that comes from the media. They’ve shot the wad of their credibility and we’re all poorer for it.

Published in Journalism
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 157 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    What’s the problem here? An ongoing conversation between an editor and his reporters about how to best cover a President who has his own well documented issues with the truth (5 million illegal voters, the biggest inauguration crowds in history, etc, etc). Seems to me this is exactly what you want in a news organization.

    With respect to “biggest inauguration crowds”, Trump didn’t say “crowd”, he said “audience”.  I never saw final numbers, but I do believe that records were set for streaming viewing of the inauguration ( I know that’s how I watched it), and the TV ratings were high, to the point that it is at plausible that it was the largest audience ever.

    • #151
  2. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    The Judge is stating that he prefers interviewers who are up front about their biases, whether he shares them or not.

    He’s also implying that he prefers to watch interviewers that share the same biases he does. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

     

    • #152
  3. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    The Judge is stating that he prefers interviewers who are up front about their biases, whether he shares them or not.

    He’s also implying that he prefers to watch interviewers that share the same biases he does. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

    Wrong again.  Gary nailed it.  To put it in the simplest possible terms, I’m tired of biased reporters pretending they have no bias.

    • #153
  4. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Larry Koler (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    Yes, it’s true, I have heard him say this. Hannity is a commentator, not a journalist. But his interviews tend to be more sloppy wet kisses than anything else. That’s my issue with him.

    There’s nothing wrong with having issues with Hannity, I have issues with Hannity. But before we went off on this tangent, Larry made a strong point about the un-admitted bias from the mainstream press. Between him, and ‘journalists’ who are grossly biased and won’t admit it, Hannity is more honest and trustworthy. And if the others would admit their own bias, we would all be much better served.

    Yes, that’s exactly what I meant by that.

    I disagree. Don’t trust anything Hannity says about Trump. He’s way too compromised for my liking. Clearly, your mileage varies, which is fine. Plenty of other people to watch or read.

    You’re just not getting it. No one here is saying that if Hannity says it, you should believe it. I know that when Hannity asks Trump a question, it will be spun in such a way as to be most beneficial to Trump. Therefore, I can evaluate what I am seeing on that context. But when Jake Tapper or Chuck Todd ask Trump a question, I’m expected to believe that they have no bias. But they do. This pretense that they are objective, when they are clearly not is one of the most toxic aspects of the political world, and is responsible for much of the nastiness and contention.

    Oh I get it. You’re just more comfortable with an interviewer who share your biases. Again, that’s fine.

    “Therefore, I can evaluate what I am seeing on that context. ”

    Try harder. Once again, you assume what wasn’t written. In a way bordering on offensive.

    Yeti, this is not rocket science or brain surgery — either one. Read what ALL  of us are saying and try to work it out.

    • #154
  5. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Yeti… one more thought that makes your repeated contention inaccurate.  In the context of the point under discussion, Rachel Maddow also falls on the honest side, because she doesn’t pretend to be neutral either.

    Do you think I agree with her, too?

    • #155
  6. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    I meant to post this almost two weeks ago but forgot until today.  It turns out that the protest camp HAS been set on fire.  By the protestors.  Since they were vacating the camp anyway, they figured it would be one final stick in the eye of the authorities.  Their official reason for setting various wooden structures on fire was as part of a “leaving ceremony.”  Which is something I always do at the end of a vacation.  Who doesn’t ceremonially set their hotel room on fire before checking out?  It’s something that all deeply spiritual lovers of the environment do.

    • #156
  7. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    I meant to post this almost two weeks ago but forgot until today. It turns out that the protest camp HAS been set on fire. By the protestors. Since they were vacating the camp anyway, they figured it would be one final stick in the eye of the authorities. Their official reason for setting various wooden structures on fire was as part of a “leaving ceremony.” Which is something I always do at the end of a vacation. Who doesn’t ceremonially set their hotel room on fire before checking out? It’s something that all deeply spiritual lovers of the environment do.

    Yeah,  I heard NPR interview one of the guys who set those fires.  His response was a word salad about celebrating the experience of protest camp living and purging bad vibes (not his words, but his words were gobbledygook).

    • #157
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.