The following is a news analysis and commentary.
As some reporters unequivocally declare Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to be “wrong” when he claimed thousands in New Jersey celebrated the Sept. 11, 2001 Islamic extremist terrorist attacks, I observe with more than a passing interest.
My interest isn’t in the presidential candidates; it’s in the news media’s conduct.
One news outlet dubbed Trump “the post truth 2016 candidate,” lifting a propaganda phrase passed along by the usual suspects. If one didn’t know better, one might think Hillary Clinton’s supporters among propagandists, astroturfers and the news media know she polls weakest when it comes to honesty, so they’re on a mission to reduce her strongest Republican competition to equal footing.
If voters can be convinced that Trump and Ben Carson are liars, then those candidates are less likely to attack Clinton’s own dubious relationship with the truth…
It may not be a conscious thought on the part of some reporters; more of a reflexive response. Maybe they constitute the post truth news media.
Substitution Game
If you’ve read my New York Times bestseller Stonewalled, you know that I’m a fan of an intellectual exercise I call the Substitution Game. It involves comparing how the press treats similar events or people depending on how the reporter or news organization feels about the issue or the newsmaker.
In the case of Trump–thoroughly despised by so many in politics and the news media–his claim about cheering Muslims has been widely dissected for days. Reporters sometimes gleefully challenge him directly, aggressively and repeatedly.
Trump’s claim “defies basic logic,” says one report. “No news reports exist…” declares another, as if an event cannot have occurred, by definition, unless it was played on the news.
In the meantime, politicians who are better liked by the news media get a relative pass on statements that could arguably merit the same brand of scrutiny and analysis as Trump’s.
For example, President Obama claims mass shootings only happen in the U.S.–as he stands in Paris where there was a mass shooting about two weeks earlier. He claims to have met his green energy goals even “quicker” than expected –never mind the instances where the goals weren’t met. He calls the U.S. “the largest country” (Canada and Russia are bigger; China and India have more people). And all of that was just at his December 1 press conference at the Paris climate change summit.
The intent is not to pick on President Obama. To be sure, there is context for the questionable comments. But the point is: reporters do not chew on them for days upon end. They don’t constantly pick arguments with Mr. Obama or demand he apologize. In fact, for the most part, reporters seem simply not to notice.
Logical Fallacy
Reporters may believe it’s untrue or unlikely that thousands in New Jersey cheered-on the World Trade Center attacks. They may not know anybody who participated in such a thing and they may not be able to locate videotape of it. But that’s quite different than knowing, unequivocally, that it didn’t happen.
Knowing that it didn’t happen would require a magical mix of omniscience and clairvoyance. Reporters who claim to know that it didn’t happen are committing a journalistic error more serious than the offense of which they accuse Trump.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump’s or Carson’s stories were definitively proven to be fabricated, it’s difficult to argue that would be more significant or indicative of their leadership abilities than the missteps of one of their opponents: Hillary Clinton. Yet reporters tend not to question her fabrications or misstatements with the same determination and persistence.
Clinton’s Honesty Issue
For the sake of brevity, we’ll review two of the most notable examples: 1. Clinton claimed we were shot at by snipers on a trip to Bosnia when she was First Lady (I was covering the trip for CBS News). Nothing even remotely close to sniper fire happened. 2. As secretary of state, Clinton publicly blamed the deadly Benghazi terrorist attacks on demonstrators inspired by a YouTube video, even though the best information was to the contrary (and she privately told her family the truth).
Substitution Game: With Clinton the lead Democrat running for president, are reporters engaging in days of passionate arguments with her about her false sniper fire claim insisting over and over, as they did with Trump, “It didn’t happen,” “It’s just plain wrong,” “Are you delusional?” or “It never happened”?
Have the same reporters criticized Clinton as secretary of state for misleading the public on Benghazi, demanding she “issue an apology”? Have they engaged in endless one on one debates with her for falsely claiming there were no classified emails on the private server on which she conducted the public’s business?
Couldn’t it be argued that Clinton was a post truth candidate long before Trump?
Slippery Slope
As reporters set aside their traditional role as fact seekers and veer into advocacy, they find themselves on a slippery journalistic slope.
There’s nothing wrong with reporting on skepticism of Trump’s (or other candidates’) claims. But to present Trump’s ideas about Muslim celebrations as the ravings of a lunatic requires dismissing, cherry picking, weighting or ignoring evidence.
In 2001, there were worldwide reports of relatively small groups of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks; some of them in the United States. Substitution Game: When CBS News anchor Dan Rather told CBS late night host David Letterman there were reports of celebrations by Muslims at home, there was no collective outcry from reporters demanding an apology from Rather or Letterman. Only when Trump suggested the same.
Substitution Game: When the Washington Post reported allegations of people “seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river,” nobody demanded the newspaper issue apologies or corrections. Only when Trump made his allegations.
When CNN and the Los Angeles Times reported on Muslims overseas in East Jerusalem celebrating the 9/11 attacks; and when Snopes.com reported that “journalists were threatened for capturing images of Palestinian celebrations, making real footage of the event harder to obtain,” and when the Foreign Press Association of Israel reported that “thousands filled the streets to celebrate” in the West Bank town of Nablus to celebrate the 9/11 bombings, and that “armed police blocked camera crews from photographing the rally,” the news wasn’t met with wild disbelief.
“The images of exuberant, cheering Palestinians – some of them children and teens – when they heard news of the tragedies angered and horrified people worldwide,” said one report at the time. Another said, “TV stations everywhere were broadcasting footage of revelers in the streets of Jerusalem and Nablus, in refugee camps and in coffee shops. Some joyously fired rifles in the air, laughed, handed out sodas and candy and made signs of victory with their fingers.” Others said that Palestinian Authority officials “phoned TV stations and other media to caution them their safety would be in jeopardy if they aired the [celebratory] segments.” U.S. News and World Report asked, “Why did so many inhabitants of the long Muslim ‘street,’ stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, appear to be overjoyed by what Osama bin Laden’s henchmen had accomplished?”
As the facts have been fleshed out, some reporters have found themselves in the awkward position of having to repeatedly redefine their criticism of Trump’s statement. At first, they scoffed at the notion that anybody celebrated the 9/11 attacks. But when overseas video surfaced, they narrowed their criticism and scoffed at the idea that there were celebrations specifically in New Jersey. But when multiple witnesses and accounts about New Jersey surfaced, they narrowed their criticism further and said it couldn’t have been “thousands.”
See how it works? Each time their narrative is undermined, they simply reframe the argument to avoid the appearance that they’ve had to concede anything.
When it comes to Trump’s 9/11 celebration comments, the news media’s conduct may not matter to people who dislike Trump; in fact, they may cheer it on.
But someday, the post truth news media might set its sights on somebody or something you care about.
I wish there were more like Atkinson in the news business and less like …………. all the rest of the MSM.
It is both pathetic and typical that someone with your poor logic skills can write a best selling non fiction book. Trump did more than claim that thousands cheered. He claimed that he saw it.
Now even a simpleton in the field of logic and rhetoric knows that it is up to the person making the statement to prove their assertion, since as you say, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. And Trump claimed that he saw such events on TV. The amount of TV coverage for the towers collapsing is not infinite. There are a dozen of so cable channels, and less than a dozen broadcast channels.
So, either there is some vast conspiracy where everyone is hiding or has destroyed the existing videos, or more likely no such videos exist. And trump, despite his billions, has not been able to turn up an instance of this having been broadcast.
Trump claimed that it was on television
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427478/trump-muslim-cheers-new-jersey-911-it-did-happen-i-saw-it-jim-geraghty
So your statement
Trump’s claim “defies basic logic,” says one report. “No news reports exist…” declares another, as if an event cannot have occurred, by definition, unless it was played on the news.
is some form of three stooges stupidity from the twilight zone.
“Trump’s claim “defies basic logic,” says one report. “No news reports exist…” declares another, as if an event cannot have occurred, by definition, unless it was played on the news.”
Fair critique. And no doubt, being the NYC vicinity, there were some Muslims cheering. However, a positive charge should be backed up by evidence.
Wonderful article. Millions have been waiting for the truth about today’s media. They have fouled their nest.
There needs to be much more of this kind of excellent commentary. Media bias has become so prevalent that it’s almost as if they’re an arm of the state (as long as the state has a Democratic President).
Once again, speaking truth to power. You have become my favorite journalist by a wide margin.
Great piece! how sad the great sin of omission that the press commits everyday by refusing to report the truth,,the real problem is; how do you fix it,,the mainstream media and our public education system has been, for the most part, taken over by liberals,,this once great country has fallen so far so fast,,,
” As reporters set aside their traditional role as fact seekers and veer into advocacy. ”
While the article in general is on target, this statement above is laughable. Most of the MSM has long ago ” veered ” so far to the left they may fall off the edge of the earth ( the earth is flat isn’t it ).
Just read the WaPo ( if you have a strong stomach) and you will see what I mean.
It’s no wonder the MSM and print media, in particular, is dieing.
Here is a similar example of “post-truth” reporting: It’s become reflexive by many in the media after tragic shootings as in California yesterday to lend their microphone to those, including the President, who advocate for “commonsense gun safety laws.” Much is then discussed about the politics of such laws and the likelihood of legislation clearing Congress. Rarely is there discussion (let alone incisive reporting) on whether the usually discussed provisions of such laws – restrictions on private sales (the gun show loophole), more exhaustive background investigations, and now no-fly listings – would have prevented the actual crime at hand.
If no evidence exists that the type of law being advocated would have actually prevented the crime, there is no more reason to bring gun control into the story than the possible impact of global warming, anti-Muslim bigotry or America’s wrong-headed interventions in the Mideast. (Oh, wait – some reporters also bring those into the discussion, too!)
The media has always been biased to the left but the big 3 networks did a good bit of PR work to convince most viewers that they at least attempted to be objective. The new media scene makes it impossible for them to mask their ideology. However, there have always been good, objective reporters that are the exception to their profession. Mrs Attkisson is one of these few. Keep up the good work!
May i say, Ms Attkisson, that you are the singularly most credible journalist working today. Never change. Your work is more important than you know.
At one point, after reading Stonewalled, I admired you, Ms. Attkisson, almost more than any other woman in America, but now I’m puzzled by your seeming softness on Donald Trump. You would perform a real and much-needed service in using your penetrating intelligence to focus on his demagoguery, for you must admit, if you are as honest as I think you are, that he is having a terrible influence.
Outstanding.
Now I know why she is so respected as a journalist/commentator. Clear, well though out. articulate but more important she actually had something to say.
very good. Old school reporting and commenting.
Nice piece, and nice to see it from a person with extensive experience in the business. Our current media is pretty poor, with a few exceptions. Keep up your good work.
Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA
Amen, Sharyl, amen.
Sharyl, I think your existence as practically the lone voice among “credentialed” journalists in making the observations you do alone speaks volumes about where the political culture of this country is. Your former colleagues–do you still speak much?–mainly seem to have taken Orwell’s 1984 as a guidebook instead of a warning. “A free and independent press”: boy, is that candle starting to gutter.
I admire your courage and straightforward adherence to the truth in the old fashioned sense of the term, i.e., what conforms to reality, as opposed to what is useful to the government. Speaking of useful, the drive-by’s you refer to are “useful” in Lenin’s sense–useful idiots, but this time in service to our very own Newspeak administration, whose mission they have flocked to join. Ministry of Truth, anyone?
Great reporting by a real journalist. I’ll read all her articles. Real Clear Politics and others need to make sure she gets coverage instead of the Washington Post, NYT and Los Angles Times opinion writers none of which are journalist
Great column as usual. It really shows how progressives depend on a compliant, if not propagandizing media. -greetings from your old stomping ground, Tampa.
The self allowed corruption of the mainstream media may well be the driving force which ends America as we know it.
And it is not only in political reporting, it is persuasive in every arena. The coverage on climate change is framed as if the theory is carved in granite. The false but constantly claimed 97% consensus among scientists is only the most obvious example.
Great article Sharyl. Not sure if this news was out when you wrote your article, but just yesterday a new video surfaced showing a CBS news report from September 16, 2001. It reported that not only did the FBI arrest Muslims cheering on rooftops, but those Muslims were actually terror suspects – supporters of the blind Sheik Abdel Rahman – mastermind of the 1993 WTC attacks. The FBI found SWARMS of terror supporting Muslims at these apartment buildings. They also found a model of the WTC on the same rooftop. The whole point of Trumps rehashing what happened that day is to illustrate that there are Muslims living among us that support terror. All Pam Geller had to do was hold a Mohammed cartoon contest in TX, and Muslim terror supporters show up with automatic weapons. If we are to prevent a Paris style attack from happening here, we need to rcognize that there are terrorists among us, last nights mass shooting in CA notwithstanding.
Trump was right about Muslims cheering in Jersey City. And they werent just Muslims, they were terror suspects and followers of Sheik Abdel Rachman, ringleader from the 93 attacks on the WTC. The FBI found a model of the WTC on the roof where they were cheering
And that has been Trumps point all along, that there are terrorists living here among us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3auKMHkZJnQ