October 8, 2019--John Allan: Any Sense At All

John Allan said, "You make me sound smarter than I am."

We were having breakfast together at the Bristol Diner.

"You mean in the blog I wrote last week about Trump's Australian connection?"

"That's the one. I was the one who posed the question that got us going but you put words in my mouth. Not that that upset me. I liked the words and thoughts you assigned to me."

"He does that all the time," Rona chimed in, "He claims it's the way he gets closer to the essence of a situation."

"I didn't make stuff up the other day. You said almost everything I attributed to you."

"'Almost everything?' I'm not sure I see that as journalistic."

"It isn't," I said, "I'm not a journalist. I see myself as an essayist."

"What pray tell is that?" playing with me, John said.

"I know this will sound pompous but I seek the truth in things. Which means I often have to extract it from ambiguous and incomplete information."

"I get that," he said, "So tell me how that worked the other day when we were talking about Australia because it still sounds as if you make stuff up."

"First of all, you're not the best witness as to what was said, what even you yourself said. No one is. I mean about what they say. No one is a human tape recorder, capturing  exactly what they said. And then there are the subtle inferences that are often best communicated via body language and gestures and nods and winks. You're really good at the latter. You're about the best winker and shrugger I know. It's like a private language of yours."

"That makes sense to me, "John said, "And I do like that, but still I'm a little uncomfortable with your methodology. Particularly when it comes to me." He sent me a broad wink.

"Let me tell you a story--"

"Not another story!" This time John didn't wink.

"I know. I can be tedious with some of my stories. But I think you'll like this one. It's about finding truth in discourse. Though putting it this way makes it sound more profound than it is."

"Actually," John said, "this story sounds promising."

"It was told to me by a colleague and friend, Sir Claus Moser, who I worked with in some of the Ford Foundation's work with expanding higher education opportunities for low-income students. He led that effort for Great Britain but before that was head of development for the British Museum and before that was the secretary to the British cabinet. In that role, among other things, he was responsible for preparing the minutes of cabinet meetings."

"Where is this headed?" John asked, "I've got to get to the office."

"I'm almost done," I said. This time Rona rolled her eyes.

"He told me there are three ways to prepare the minutes. 'Since recoding devices weren't allowed, first, you can do your best to capture as precisely as possible exactly what members said. Then, you can do that and add a little editing. For example, to clean up the grammar and syntax. Finally, you can do what I did--write what members would have said if they had any sense at all.'"

"I do like that," John said. "And I take your point. Now I have to get to work."

April 22, 2013--We Report, You Decide

For the New York Times, it's "All the News That's Fit to Print"; for CNN, it's the self-congrtualtory, "The Worldwide Leader in News"; at MSNBC it's "Lean Forward" (whatever that means); and at Fox News, there is the best tagline of all--"We Report, You Decide."

I mean it, Fox's is far and away in the best tradition of journalism--the news is to be reported, not interpreted; and it is for citizens, not reporters, to decide what's important, true, or urgent.

So what to make of the fact that when the Senate last week was considering expanding background checks on gun buyers, Fox not only didn't report about it, but literally ignored it?

What from this are we supposed to conclude?

First the facts, then you decide--

The morning of the vote, watching "Fox and Friends," one would not have known that it was scheduled for later in the day. Pretty much the entire show was devoted to the explosion at the fertilizer factory in Texas. A big story indeed, with visuals of the sort TV news can't resist; but as the New York Times reported, there was not one sentence about the impending vote in the Senate. Nor was there much through the rest of the day. And, considering the amount of time Fox devoted to the fertilizer plant disaster, it is striking that they failed to report that the last time it was inspected was in 1985.

Over at MSNBC, though, "Morning Joe" divided its time between the Senate vote and the explosion. Host of "Morning Joe," former conservative Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, is a born-again advocate for legislation to expand background checks and other efforts to enhance gun safety. In truth, as an advocate, he also was far from an objective reporter; but at least on his program, considerable time was devoted to the subject and a variety of points of view were represented.

Later in the day, after the Senate voted not to require background checks at gun shows, President Obama made comments in the Rose Garden. All the networks carried it. All but Fox. Viewers were told, if they wanted to watch it, they should look elsewhere.

So before Obama could complete one sentence, Fox cut away to its innocuous afternoon program, "The Five."

When questioned why they did not air the president's speech, Michael Clemente, Fox's executive vice president for news, said that they had covered many presidential speeches on the subject and did not consider this one especially newsworthy.

I get it. Fox News, in spite of its impressive tagline, is not news, it's propaganda.

It was ironic, though, that at the very moment the president was speaking the subject under discussion on "The Five" was media bias. No surprise, liberal media bias.

Not ironic, considering Fox's devotion to the NRA's most radical views, was the missed opportunity for them to spent time on the air gloating about the vote: about how the Senate voted as Fox had advocated--to prevent doing anything more to interfere with alleged Second Amendment rights.

But, I forgot, that would have been untrue to their self-proclaimed mission--reporting so we can decide. Gloating, of course, is not reporting.