Facts, lies and videotape

Last week, at the suggestion of the Boston Globe, about 350 newspapers ran editorials taking issue with President Donald Trump’s description of the media as the “enemy of the people.”

We didn’t. But I’m OK with that. Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously, and we’ve already written quite a bit about Trump’s dangerous and inflammatory rhetoric. I like the attitude expressed by Washington Post Editor Marty Baron back in February 2017: “We’re not at war with the administration, we’re at work.”

I also like what the Van Buren County Democrat, which did participate in the Globe’s initiative, wrote. Its editorial writers simply reminded readers that they were part of the community, they had a job to do, and that “[n]ot everybody likes it when their business is put out for public review, even when it’s public business, even when it deserves review.”

This president doesn’t like his business being reviewed, so he’s adopted the tactics of the authoritarian dictators he admires. Most people seem to understand that, but there’s a faction in his thrall, and the party he’s hijacked is full of quislings who fear his Twitter account more than they care for their country.

We’re in a mess, but we’ve been in messes before. I’ll keep writing about the mess and don’t expect anyone will seriously try to shut me up, but it is disconcerting when people who occupy high offices reveal themselves as emotional cripples and dangerous cynics. I used to respect Rudy Giuliani. Now he’s just another TV star selling the idea that facts are in the eye of the beholder.

I don’t believe he believes that, just as I don’t believe Newt Gingrich believes feelings are more important than facts. They’ve reconciled themselves to defending the indefensible. It’s a career decision for these guys; it has absolutely nothing to do with any political or legal philosophy, nothing to do with conservatism. It’s just that their family has a new capo di tutti capi and, while he’s a bit of a nut, he must be served.

I wonder how we’re going to feel about this in a few years if things return to what we used to think of as normal. I believe that in the very long run we might see the Trump era as a kind of shock therapy. But my fear is that we’ve reached some kind of inflection point, and that achieving anything like a national consensus will be impossible from now on. Any and all documentary evidence is impeachable—if Putin were to post an embarrassing video of Trump on YouTube it would be difficult, if not impossible, to definitely prove whether it was faked or not.

Any audio or video of anyone doing or saying anything is subject to being labeled fake news. Because you can fake video or audio. And because people can choose not to believe experts who tell them things that don’t jibe with their preferred version of the world.

Because enough of us want to believe facts are in the eye of the beholder. And the people who provide facts contrary to their fantasies or debunk their intricate conspiracy theories are their enemies.

It’s not just Trump supporters who are willing to assume nefarious intent. I got an email last week from a guy who demanded I explain why I reviewed the Dinesh D’Souza movie Death of a Nation. He was convinced that I was ordered to review it, and even though I sort of trashed it, the net result was positive for D’Souza because he makes points with the faithful whenever the MSM trashes his work. His point was that it would have been more responsible to ignore the film.

While that’s not a crazy idea, I disagree. (And, sir, I wrote you back, but my email bounced.) Our policy is to try to review every film that opens in Arkansas, and we probably get upwards of 90 percent of them. I reviewed Death of a Nation because I got a advance screening link. I want to encourage distributors to provide us with advance links, so if they send one, I review their movie.

They probably didn’t care that my review was negative. They were probably happy to have the space devoted to their film. I doubt the review kept anyone from watching it. That wasn’t my intention. I don’t care whether you see Death of a Nation or not. I just wanted to write something interesting and true about a cultural artifact. Because that’s my job.

That job largely consists of offering opinions. These opinions ought to be based in fact. The most important part of any movie review is reporting. If a documentary—a film that purports to be non-fiction— includes an assertion that’s demonstrably untrue, the critic should point that out. That’s just journalism.

If I say it’s a bad movie, well, that’s my opinion. You’re welcome to argue with that.

And you’re welcome to believe whatever lies you want to believe. It is still a free country.

What I’d rather you do is check things out for yourself. But failing that—and most people won’t, some get offended when you suggest it’s their responsibility to do so—at least consider the source.

It’s perfectly fair to think that most television news programming exists as a mortar for advertising. That doesn’t mean television news is dishonest, only that they are trying to monetize your attention. They know you like shiny things and shouty drama.

And we know that as well—we’re trying to catch your attention too. That’s why a lot of the email alerts we send out focus on crime and weird stuff. You’re more likely to click on a link if you expect to be rewarded with something juicy, a little bit of horror or outrage.

No one is trying to trick anyone. No one is arguing for the inherent nobility of the profession. The job is important, but we have good guys and bad actors just like everyone else. We have lazy people and heroes who never get a byline. The media is a mixed bag.

But we need nosy people asking questions and holding the powerful to account. And we need an informed citizenry capable of making informed judgments about whom to trust, whether they’re in the news or just delivering it.