‘Something happening here, What it is ain’t exactly clear’

Does adding balance to journalism skew it into a spiral?

Imagine this: Donald Trump, buoyed by the “uuuge” success of the Republican National Circus this week, unveils a list of new promises:

Roll back smoking bans in states that enacted them. “Government can’t tell you where to smoke,” says Trump, a famous nonsmoker. “Smoking is good for you. I know because I’m smart.”

Journalists, whose dropped jaws are still on the floor, where they had remained for the entirety of the convention, scurry to find someone to attack — and defend — Trump’s assertion.

A Democrat says “Trump is crazy.” Another assures us that “smoking kills.”

But sure enough, several obscure research papers and “experts” back Trump’s claim.

“Smoking is indeed good for you,” says one. “All those other studies are part of a vast conspiracy.”

The most telegenic and bombastic of these experts is invited on Fox News to discuss the findings. A mini-debate is launched. Trump phones in.

When it is pointed out that state laws govern such matters, Trump says he doesn’t care. “I’ll take action. Tobacco built this country. Let’s make America great again.”

Nobody invokes images of the blue haze that engulfed office buildings in the 1970s, when people everywhere could smoke anywhere, but somebody suggests a thumbsup photo of Trump on cigarette packaging. Trump nods his approval, and immediately hires him.

Speaking of the 1970s, Trump says he will repeal drunk-driving laws.

“We need to get government off the backs of the people.”

“Yeah,” says a man with a Trump sign, “drunk driving doesn’t kill people; bad guys and terrorists kill people.”

Appalled Republicans say nothing – in the name of party unity – and agree to put Trump’s photograph on all liquor stores.

Journalists again quote detractors and supporters, and somehow agree to reference studies that question the validity of drunk-driving statistics, all in the name of fairness, balance, reflecting reality and appearing to take a ridiculous presidential candidate seriously.

Those statistics are then chopped, rinsed, rearranged and presented anew. Local “experts” appear once again on the talk show circuit, and these new “studies” are even repeated by incredulous columnists wondering why we are even talking about such things.

Soon the studies have regained common currency, and Trump labels naysayers as “losers.”

Speaking of getting government off the backs of the people, Trump says he will eliminate income tax the moment he steps into the Oval Office. This gets a lot of headlines, even though every journalist knows it is ridiculous, and dominates the talk-show circuit, with various experts asking if it is even possible. Many say it is ridiculous, but others say it’s quite common.

“Look at Bermuda, and Brunei and Kuwait. It works!”

“And the golfing is really nice there,” says Trump, adding, “I won the evangelicals.”

Now Trump unveils a plan to equip all citizens with ray guns, to protect them in the event of an alien invasion.

Even his staunchest supporters are dumbfounded, until he says, “Look, when we had Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, things were safer. America was great.”

Some remind him it’s “science fiction! It’s just a story.”

But others are scratching their heads.

“Maybe. Yeah, why not? Ray guns. Aliens. That could work ...”

And then some editor like me, somewhere, realizes, “Oh dear, are we really going to have to do a story on ray guns?”