By Luke Warm
Professor of Mendacity
University of Munchausen
In my lecture today, I’m going to outline how an adroit dissembler can plant a new way of thinking in the public mind with the expert use of deceit injected into a superficially factual newspaper report.
We will examine a magnificent example of applied mendacity in a specialized case where an astute manipulator of public opinion has attempted to create the illusion of a “governmental crisis” which, if widely accepted, might be expected to shoehorn into existence certain political changes that would not have been possible if mere truth had prevailed.
Now, you say, what if there is no “governmental crisis”?
Ah-hah! Thought you’d never ask.
Of course, we all know that old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Well, what if you want to fix it, but it ain’t broke?
What do you do?
A topnotch political bullshit artist will pretend it’s broke. The virtuoso mendaciteur will simply manufacture a crisis out of whole cloth.
A key ingredient of what amounts to a calculated disinformation program will be, of course, a compliant journalist.
The propeller of chimera will need a mouthpiece to disseminate, unquestioningly, the baloney.
A wonderful example of mendacious cooperation between politician and journalist may be found in the December 26, 2010 edition of the Plymouth Observer, wherein a reporter has credulously received a line of bunk from a politico, salted it with some of the trappings of “objective journalism,” and laid it out for readers to ingest at their peril.
In a future lecture, I’ll discuss the wonderful uses of the mythology of “objective journalism” as a warper of journalists’ brainwaves, but today I want to focus on this reporter, whom I commend for avoiding the need to “call the other side for comment.” This reporter ingeniously placed his calls for comment to representatives of the SAME SIDE!
Brilliant!
What a deft stroke!
A skilled example of journalistic legerdemain — one of the best I’ve seen.
Oh yes, some would accuse the reporter of sloth, of being too lazy to place a call to the real players in the story.
Others might accuse the journalist of being a craven slave of the politician to whom he is in thrall, i.e., hoping for a trainload of similar handouts — aka press releases — so long as he doesn’t show the slightest sign of independence or critical thinking.
But such criticisms miss the point: Planting fabrications in a mainstream newspaper is an art, and many politicians are simply not sufficiently canny and able to lure a slavering journalist to do their bidding.
For the journalist who becomes the willing and compliant conduit for propaganda, a large amount of credit is due also: It is not easy swallowing huge doses of humble pie while suppressing any sense of journalistic integrity.
In the article, headlined “Heise calls for DWSD fix,” the reporter scores a most amazing coup. He actually prints gobbledygook with the bald-faced pretense that it makes sense.
The politician is a newly-elected Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives not yet sworn in. The statement he made is a marvel of duplicity: “Whenever you’ve got a huge story like (the Detroit indictments) that really transforms the governmental landscape like these indictments have, your first reaction is one of shock at the scope and severity of these indictments.”
Boil that statement down and what do you have?
“Indictments, indictments, indictments.”
A critical thinker might conclude that the commentator has said, three times in identical words, nothing.
But the real message that our politician has sent is that the indictments-the indictments-the indictments have changed the political landscape.
He wants us to believe that the political landscape has been changed. That is the falsehood that a maestro of manipulation wants to plant in the public psyche. If we think about it, we know it is false, because the indictments were handed down against people who either do not now hold govermental office or never have had a governmental position. Furthermore, indictments are simply charges. They are not convictions. But it doesn’t matter, because even if people are convicted, they are not presently office-holders.
In reality, the political landscape has not been changed.
Now, this genius might have said, “The political landscape has been changed. The political landscape has been changed. The political landscape has been changed.”
But if he had done that, he would have outed himself. We would have known immediately that he was trying to dupe us. Whereas, the word “indictment” has shock value and is indeed a fact, therefore it seems hard to rebut.
Of course, there is nothing to rebut but hot air.
My hat is off to this guy. He has demonstrated how a master deceiver will cloak his lie with a repetition of the same shocking word in hopes that waving a red flag — in this case repeated mention of “indictments” — will distract us from seeing through the false assertion that government has been transformed.
While the indictments can’t actually transform government, the lie all on its own might do some transforming, if it takes root and flourishes.
That is where the compliant journalist steps into the picture. Having swallowed whole this lie, the reporter goes about pretending to do his job by quoting other people in addition to the sly one who planted the seed.
The reporter’s cleverness stands out. Since his main source calls for transforming the Detroit water and sewer system from a city-owned enterprise to something controlled by people like him who live in suburbs, our reporter confines himself to quoting people who live in such places.
What art! What duplicitous skill!
Does the journalist place a call to the mayor of Detroit, whose city would be affected by the scheme to pilfer its water and sewer operation?
Why, no, he does not.
Why not? We can only speculate that maybe laziness was not the core cause, but rather the sagacious reporter could foresee that he might hear arguments somewhat like the ones that I have proposed in this lecture. An astute reporter would know instinctively that someone aligned with Detroit might raise a disquieting question; might seek to know how the city would be compensated for the hijacking of a valuable asset. Someone with a Detroit bias might even suggest that a legislative act of theft alone — even though promulgated by outstate Republicans who pretend to have only the city’s good in mind — might not be enough to stop the city and its citizens from filing waves of lawsuits to challenge the Legislature’s attempted larceny.
A Detroiter might have pointed out that the former mayor who made necessary the indictments has been throughly discredited and is in prison, while the current mayor is trying hard to make things work in Detroit with no help from the geniuses who inflated this newspaper canard.
Such an opinion should be suppressed, obviously, because it deviates too closely towards the truth.
Any swerving toward veracity is to be avoided, along with the views of people who might point out that suburban politicians for years have coveted the Detroit water and sewer operation and have planted phony stories about high Detroit water rates while ignoring the fact that suburban governments customarily mark up Detroit’s wholesale rates, passing the difference to suburban customers and blaming Detroit.
An honorable journalist might feel compelled to include such a comment in his article.
But if he doesn’t hear such a criticism, his conscience is clear.
Therefore, don’t make that phone call that would add balance, clarity and set off a loud bullshit siren.
I hope you’ve taken good notes, but if not, don’t worry — I predict that this newspaper article will become a textbook example of how to conduct predatory politics with the aid of journalistic cynicism.
I’m sorry that I don’t have time today to discuss another amazing duplicity in this brilliantly fabricated trial balloon — the self-contradictory statement that turning a public entity like the Detroit water and sewer department into a privately-run operation will lead to “greater accountability and transparency.”
