‘A+’ for deceit

By Luke Warm

Professor of Mendacity

University of Munchausen

My purpose in lecturing you today is to explain how it’s possible for a journalistic essay to be judged inferior or even given a failing grade according to conventional standards, when the same work may well be a monument to achievement–mendacious achievement– when viewed from another direction.

I’m referring to the February 5, 2010 Detroit Free Press editorial on the subject of a new bridge connecting the United States and Canada at Detroit.

While this editorial was given a failing grade by another writer on this blog, I would differ in the extreme. As I say, it all depends on the purpose for which the essay is written. If one assumes erroneously as my JOTR colleague apparently did that the Free Press editorial was written to edify, inform, enlighten, instruct and in general be construed as a paragon of righteously-conceived journalism, then maybe it’s true that it fails to live up to those goals.

But there is another objective of journalism that often gets short shrift and is mostly not acknowledged by conventional practitioners of the craft–the goal of deceiving, duping, gulling and generally controlling the content and direction of public thought on a particular matter. The purpose of a newspaper may be to print the news, but it must also follow its mandate to raise hell by hedging, obfuscating and prevaricating when necessity demands.

Furthermore, many members of our University of Munchausen student body will be following careers in government, business, law or medicine where the skills of deception are most particularly in demand while simultaneously in short supply. When a wonderful example of the duplicitous art presents itself, as it has with this superb Free Press editorial, it is incumbent upon me as your professor to celebrate as well as explicate the event.

Thus, if we judge by the standards of the devious craft, the Free Press editorial wins plaudits, laurels and a grade of A+ from this professor, the judgment of a previous JOTR scrivener notwithstanding.

Indeed, it would seem appropriate at this time for me to compare and contrast the relative credibility levels of my work versus those of the aforementioned JOTR hack, who does not even have a Ph.D.

That’s right! Not one Ph.D. does this man have, whereas I have–count em!–five Ph.D.s, all conferred by my dear old alma mater the U of M. Yes, indeed, the University of Munchausen has bestowed doctorates on me in the disciplines of Mendacity, Duplicity, Casuistry, Sophistry, Baloney and Malarkey.

Five Ph.D.s! And my Nemesis doesn’t even have one.

Hey, wait a minuate–that’s six!

Who you gonna believe?

With six Ph.D.s, you gotta believe me, even if I’m full of shit!

But I digress.

Let us take a moment, then, to parse this magnificently-written Free Press opus, looking at its major achievements in the art of editorial sleight-of-hand.

But first, I’d like to take time to demolish the contention of my rival JOTR columnist, who characterized as stupid the timing of the Free Press editorial, published the same day that a judge ordered the Billionaire Hero of Free Enterprise, Manuel “Matty” Moroun, to tear down his duty-free store and gas station. My JOTR friend thinks the Free Press failed to acknowledge this major breaking news. He misses the point. The judge based his order on the notion, preposterous on the face of it, that Mr. Moroun was wrong to place buildings on land he didn’t own. I ask you, what was wrong with what Mr. Moroun did, other than that he got caught?

Every time I read the Free Press editorial, I marvel at the genius of the writer who proposed that readers believe there is “shame on both sides.” That is a declaration absolutely breathtaking in its audacity. Think of it: Mr. Moroun has besieged governments and private parties with myriad lawsuits intended as nuisances which, taken in the aggregate, will (he hopes) induce anyone who opposes Mr. Moroun to spend profligate amounts of money in court and eventually fade away, having seen their financial resources dwindle to the point of nothingness.

In other words, for anyone who has followed this situation religiously, the shame is all on Mr. Moroun’s side. No question. For the newspaper to suggest that shame should be shared is a brilliant stroke in the propaganda war, and should echo down the media hall of mirrors for generations, helping to distort and pervert any true interpretation of events.

Marvelous how a mere phrase can warp perceptions, forcing them to stray away from truth and towards the abyss of confusion that is the domain of mass malarkey.

Frankly, though, I thought the real master work in this newspaper fulmination was the suggestion that “it’s time for Moroun, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, officials from Canada and the Federal Highway Administration, and representatives of regional business to sit down and talk seriously about the future of the international border.”

Isn’t that a marvel? For faulty logic and sheer misconceived factual infrastructure, that has to be the prize-winner.

Baldfaced duplicity, I applaud you!

If you know anything about Mr. Moroun, you know that he doesn’t sit down with any of these people. Why, he won’t even allow government inspectors and police on his bridge. When asked if he would sell the Ambassador Bridge to Canada, he told the Canadians, “Sure–give me three billion smackers!”

Three billion for a bridge his own hireling engineering firm judged to be in “fair” condition with a deck in “poor” condition? Talk about highway robbery! But you see what I mean? The newspaper, pretending to be fair and balanced, has proposed a seemingly fair and balanced solution: That all these governments and businesses “sit down” and negotiate with a bandit. I admit, many who read the newspaper and know the facts will just laugh and say the Free Press once again is mowing Matty’s lawn.

But that misses the point. There are many people out there who, despite countless lies and prevarications from this publication, still give credit to whatever Michigan’s oldest newspaper propounds. Therein lies the wonder of mendacity. To deceive, distort, obfuscate while seeming to be balanced and fair–oh, how precious!

But the editorial doesn’t stop there. It compounds absurdity in the most audacious manner, by proposing “a government purchase of the Ambassador and contracting with Moroun to operate it and a second downriver crossing.”

Of course, this is a ridiculous stretcher: No responsible government or private business could possibly consider paying a grossly inflated $3 billion to Mr. Moroun for his Ambassador Bridge, then turn around and hire him to keep running it in fair to poor condition. To do such a thing would require a total disregard for the public good. To suggest that those same governments would build a second bridge at huge public cost, then turn over its operation to Mr. Moroun so he could run it too into the ground is absolutely ludicrous, although that suggestion was made in all seriousness, apparently, by the Detroit Free Press.

As I said, breathtaking! It is a statement that requires a total suspension of disbelief on the part of readers, and yet it is worded in such a bland and reasonable way that I suspect more than a few will be duped, gulled and hoodwinked into thinking this newspaper really is in the know.

You probably think by now I’ve exhausted my encomiums for this expert piece of newspaper truth-fracturing. Not so! The Free Press has yet another wonderful surprise for us in this comment: “The state has shown a lack of flexibility in working with an innovative and aggressive private partner.”

All I can say is WOW!! That takes the cake, really.

Of course, to believe this comment. we must bend our idea of what is meant by “innovative and aggressive.”

If it’s “innovative and aggressive” to sue everyone who stands in your way, steal property and build bridges, gas stations and duty-free stores on public land, then Mr. Moroun surely fits the Free Press definition. Once again, the newspaper has printed a declaration that will help to prevent a true understanding of the bridge magnate.

It is rare indeed to find such a perfect example of journalistic deceit.

Far from flunking, the Free Press deserves–and gets!–an A+.