Here’s the first review I’ve seen of Robert Redford and Cate Blanchett’s production of Mary Mapes’s fairy tale:
The problem I have with TRUTH is one of focus. While, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn’t say anything wrong, or leave important details out, it does emphasize a certain point of view strongly. There is a reasonable case to be made that this is because it is the side we haven’t heard. But there is more to it than that — it is trying to build a Hollywood narrative out of a decidedly messy situation by amplifying certain details and minimizing others. Plus, I think the real story here is one of journalistic failure. A focus on what causes us make mistakes and why we often can’t admit when we are wrong would have been much more interesting. That stuff is kind of in the atmosphere here, but isn’t emphasized.
I’ll illustrate my feelings with one of my favorite stories from science. In 1991, Andrew Lyne announced the discovery of the first planet around another star. He was scheduled to give a keynote address about it at the January 1992 meeting of the American Astronomical Society in front of thousands of astronomers. Yet when he got up, he instead explained that he was wrong. He had done some calculations incorrectly, and there was no planet. Rather than disdain, he got a standing ovation from the crowd. That’s exactly how science is supposed to work, and journalism too. But when Mary Mapes was confronted with fairly compelling evidence that she didn’t get things right, she didn’t seem to take a fresh look at the the facts in this new light, she doubled down on her original position. I think it was entirely justified that she was fired, even if the manner in which it was done was problematic.
A democracy depends on a well-informed public, and journalists have an extraordinary responsibility to be above reproach. In our two-party system, too often things degenerate into “sides” and scoring points on the other team. Yes it isn’t fair when one side can lie and change public opinion, and the other can make an honest mistake, face enormous penalties, and have other correct points ignored. But whining about what’s fair is a children’s game. Responsible adults who want to be taken seriously should do the upstanding thing and lead by example.
I’d note (as I always have to do) that “forgeries” is the wrong word, because it implies that there was something real to forge. They were fakes.
The letter is a fake, and there was never anything accurate about the letter either.
Even the guy who brought them the “documents” later claimed they were fake. Of course his story is that evil Carl Rove set him up.
A democracy depends on a well-informed public, and journalists have an extraordinary responsibility to be above reproach.
What a quaint, old fashioned idea.
“A democracy depends on a well-informed public, and journalists have an extraordinary responsibility to be above reproach.”
One thing I’ve learned as an investor in startups and small companies, is that you have to do your own diligence, as much as possible. If you have to share the load (and you do), you have to get multiple sources and cross-check them (like, do the customer interviews correlate to the sales figures?) A mortal sin in our diligence group is hiding a conflict of interest (e.g. not disclosing that you are already an investor).
This is how I behave when I invest.
The parallels to being an informed citizen and voter, and being leery of journalists, are obvious. But, it’s hard and tedious work.
The problem with modern politics isn’t really that it’s harder to get good information about any one thing (in fact, it’s easier), it’s that there’s so damn much politics – government has infested practically everything we do these days, and you could easily spend (more than) all your time staying informed.
If only Baghdad Jim had been around to defend Mapes and Rather/