By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Of course Yahoo News should fire Katie Couric. She
committed an act of gross intellectual dishonesty — and if you don’t fire a
journalist for dishonesty, what in hell do you fire one for? Bad manners?
Well, yes. More on that in a bit.
Couric is under fire (you know, like Hillary Rodham
Clinton in Bosnia) for her role in an anti-gun documentary (NB: My iPad wants
“anti-gun” to be “anti-fun” — changed it three times — and I do not disagree)
in which dishonest editing was used to make it look as though pro–Second
Amendment activists were unable to answer elementary questions about a
gun-rights controversy. This technique is known as “the Jon Stewart.” What you
do is take a few seconds (or, in this case, a few minutes) of reaction shots (the
footage they shoot of people’s faces while other people are talking) and then
insert that non-talking footage after a question is asked: VoilĂ , the
opposition is literally speechless. My friend Jonah Goldberg knows a little bit
about this, his Daily Show appearance
being an infamous example of editing with malice.
This kind of thing is the stock-in-trade of faux
journalists such as Jon Stewart and crude propagandists such as Michael Moore,
but Katie Couric is, in theory, something else: an actual journalist. There are
things we permit among comedians that we do not permit among journalists: I
doubt very much that every anecdote Richard Pryor ever shared actually
happened.
The usual idiots are rallying to Couric’s defense for the
usual reason, which has absolutely nothing to do with principle and everything
to do with a deep disinclination to allow anything to happen that might be
considered a victory for conservative critics of the mainstream media. This is
not a First Amendment question: No one is arguing that this film should be
censored, the way films critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton were subject to
government censorship before Citizens
United; rather, this is a straightforward question about journalistic
standards and Yahoo’s adherence to or wanton abandonment of them. Journalists
are not supposed to tell lies to their audiences.
Couric did.
Case closed.
There’s a lot of “the enemy of my enemy”-type thinking
going around in media-criticism circles right now. All the best people
pronounced themselves scandalized that eccentric Silicon Valley billionaire
Peter Thiel, a libertarian activist (and sometime National Review writer), is helping to fund Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit
against Gawker, which published a sex
tape featuring the entertainer. (In 1991, I sent a letter to William F. Buckley
Jr., offering my services to his magazine, never expecting that the phrases
“Hulk Hogan,” “sex tape,” and “National
Review” would appear in the same sentence.) This, too, is being presented
as a First Amendment crisis sparked by an evil right-wing moneyman.
Spare me. Gawker
is a magazine whose columns have argued, among other things, that people should
be arrested and locked in cages for saying the wrong things about global
warming. Now its publisher wants to be a free-speech martyr? I don’t think so.
What Gawker stands accused of is a
violation of privacy. It is true that violation-of-privacy cases are more
complicated where public figures are concerned. But we have a pretty good body
of law on that subject and, contra would-be censor Donald Trump, our courts
have a pretty good record on handling complaints of libel, defamation, and
invasion of privacy where public figures are concerned. Thiel may have his own
beefs with Gawker – or, who knows,
maybe he’s just a huge Hulk Hogan fan? — but unless you believe that
invasion-of-privacy laws per se violate free speech, there’s nothing amiss with
a celebrity pursuing litigation against a magazine or a benefactor supporting
that litigation.
Again, it all depends on who is on the receiving end. I
can think of at least one high-profile lawsuit by a celebrity against a
well-known journal of opinion that has not received such tender concern from
our desultory free-speech crusaders.
A key criterion in libel cases is that the offending
claim must be false. (That’s one of the reasons we have invasion-of-privacy
cases: It may very well be that the local high-school basketball coach engages
in extravagant Brony play in the privacy of his own home, but that doesn’t
necessarily mean that this fact belongs on the front page.) What Katie Couric
did was to perpetrate a falsehood. That should be the sort of thing that gets
you fired, but it isn’t. The other media-in-crisis story of the last week or so
involves a now-former Demos blogger named Matt Bruenig, who was canned after
calling Neera Tanden, a pal of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a hypocrite. (He called
her “Scumbag Neera,” a reference to the Scumbag Steve meme.) That’s what gets
you fired — crossing a Friend of Herself.
Some time back, L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling found
himself in the headlines for having made some ugly, grossly racist statements.
Bruenig, who pretends to be some sort of journalist, manufactured out of thin
air a quote from your favorite roving correspondent defending Sterling. I’m not
saying “exaggerated” or “took out of context,” but simply made up. Never mind
that I’d never even heard of the man — if you’ve got a conservative in your
crosshairs, you call him a racist, and if there’s no excuse to do so, you make
one up. That never bothered the folks at Demos, not one bit.
But call a powerful Democrat a hypocrite and you get
fired.
I am not among those who think that people should be
fired every time they make a mistake, say something stupid, or embarrass
themselves. But dishonesty has to be a firing offense for journalists.
According to Lawyers,
Guns, & Money, Bruenig has a full-time job as a lawyer working for —
the federal government, at the National Labor Relations Board. (They always
find their way onto the public teat.) I wonder how many people in similar
positions are permitted to work in high-profile advocacy jobs for conservative
organizations. I’m going to guess approximately zero.
Couric, Gawker,
Bruenig: It isn’t about principle. Never is, never was, never will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment