I'd Rather Be Accurate!

In September 2004, before the Presidential election of that year and before the 3rd anniversary of 9/11, CBS's "60 Minutes" news program ran a story claiming that they had obtained records proving that President George W. Bush had skated through his National Guard tenure. Dan Rather sat at the helm, providing gravitas to the damning news report. Disclosure of these documents seemed to legitimize the deepest thoughts of Democrats and liberals - this president lied, was a son of privilege, and didn't deserve to be in office.

However - when the broadcast was over, shit already started to fly.

Right-wing bloggers grabbed hold of the story and images of the documents and immediately refuted their authenticity. CBS and its esteemed anchor flew into the defensive, backing the accuracy of their report. This proved difficult, as the author of the documents was long dead and they only had one source who provided the documents and claimed them as real. Eventually, it could not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the documents were real. Rather resigned his post in November 2004 under the shame of possible political slander. It no longer mattered if the documents (or the information contained therein) was indeed true - the story itself had been made illegitimate by hasty reporting and shoddy fact-checking. Now America would never know the truth.

So... where does this leave us as consumers of news? Well - it leaves us in a precarious position, as the need to question each and every story has been put front and center. We can't trust the mainstream media because the importance of ratings (and being "the first" to break a story) has superseded accuracy in reporting. We also need to be careful of the pundits who analyze the news for us. In the case of "Rathergate," the bloggers in question were members of the Republican Party or apparatchiks to Bush himself. Nary existed an unbiased source. Without absolute authority - the author of the documents, in this case, since their authenticity could not be proven by a third party - the argument would never be even and the public would never know the truth. The only truth remaining is that the public can't trust anything they hear and their fact-checking resources are as biased as the news stories themselves.

Bleak. I know.

As a voter... well... my opinions as a voter and participant in American political life would seem odd and depressing to some. I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 and even if he were the most capable member of the Texas Air National Guard, I still wouldn't have voted for him. It didn't take a newscast to persuade me that his views and my views stood at odds with each other. However, I'm not most Americans - I am generally skeptical of mass media and those in positions of power (Republican or Democrat). I wish everyone could be hyper-critical, but they're not. Some people, among the struggles (or nirvana!) of everyday life, choose not to question their perceived figures of authority. I question everything - always have and always will. It's the only power, as an American voter and citizen of the world, that I feel I have left: the ability to think for myself.

As a student of journalism (and of life), I realize that everything said or written be interpreted as an indictment or an untruth. It's important to be transparent and to closely examine all sides of an argument, if only to know how to address both admirers and detractors. It's also easier now to hide behind a computer, citing others and blogging my own opinion than it is to report "news." Being a commenter resolves one from claims of slander or libel and is protected by the First Amendment (if one believes that still exists). Rathergate proves that it's a dangerous time to report the news, if only because there are armies of people ready to pounce on a story deemed slanted or, worst of all, untrue. This happens with both left and right wingers, so no one is really safe (if you need an example, just look at the Internet claims of retarded baby Palin not being Miss Sarah's and actually belonging to her knocked-up daughter - that's the only reason her pregnancy was addressed by the Palin camp - because bloggers were supposing an even greater transgression that necessitated repudiation).

Check, double-check, and triple-check everything you print and broadcast. Play devil's advocate with yourself so you can address every argument against you. Be ready to defend your statements, but never pretend to be ironclad. Know your sources - and be prepared to take their pitfalls as your own. The reporter is the mouthpiece of the whistleblower, and reprinting or broadcasting their story (especially on a long-running national newscast) is legitimizing their word. No longer do people view news as unbiased - even if one is reporting a matter of public record - if an authority figure (especially one with as much money and influence as G. W. Bush) undergoes a character assassination. Someone is going to find a crack in your story and you had better be ready with the superglue when that time comes.

For further reading and to see where our reference articles for this piece were, click HERE.