,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is another example of the "ethical asymmetry" I mentioned above (below?).
A spokesman for the WH can just make an insanely grandiose false claim, knowing that the ethics of journalism require the reporter to quote him without saying, "This is a ridiculous lie."
A spokesman for the WH can just make an insanely grandiose false claim, knowing that the ethics of journalism require the reporter to quote him without saying, "This is a ridiculous lie."
Should the journalists abandon their own ethical rules? "The WH had no response to this story other than grandiose lies." Then it becomes (seemingly) a partisan player, and journalism loses its privilege as a neutral arbiter of fact. Which is important!
Just as its important for military generals and retired Administration officials to keep their own counsel as to the qualifications of men currently in power. It's a good rule! It makes sense! But its a rule that can be hacked by people who choose not abide by it.
The reason there's no established way for dealing with these situations is until this moment, people who worked for the White House didn't respond to reporters' questions with fantastical, easily disprovable lies. They restrained themselves out of basic ethics!
Which meant: you spin, you elide, you argue. "It was a very successful summer, we achieved these four major goals, and advanced others," etc. The reporter reports it, provides context, we all move on. Everybody played the same game.
To quote America's foremost public intellectual, Walter Sobchack: "This isn't Nam. There are rules."
