The Unfashionability Of Truth

This is a letter written to the Vancouver Sun's Stephen Hume, in response to his March 3rd article: The 'old media' are the 'new media' -- just look at The Sun. Believe me, I do, Mr. Hume, I do...

Dear Mr. Hume:

Regarding your piece in yesterday's Sun, you made a few good points. When you talk about how the 'new media' really is the 'old media,' just in different form, I'm with ya, I'm with ya.

Beyond that, many points you make can be criticized (what makes you think you're not a wealthy dilettante?). What I mostly objected to is the idea that professional media outlets such as the Sun provide some sort of filter, separating the wheat from the chaff and assuring the consumer of quality. I'd agree that the Net has a high ratio of chaff to wheat, but from where I sit, newspapers aren't any better.

Consider yesterday's Province. On the front page, we are asked "how is it possible" that a 100-sqft. rathole in East Van costs $3.90 a square foot, while a luxury penthouse is only $2.90 a square foot. That is a jaw-droppingly stupid question, and that's on the front page! You speak of accountability? What do you think the odds are that the reporter responsible -- one Lora Grindlay -- will be fired? Zero, that's what, and it's a shame because I can't respect a newspaper that employs someone that dumb.

Maybe you're thinking "Well, that's the Province." But is the Sun any better? Yours is the paper that has Shelley Fralic writing on social issues, and Doug Todd writing about religion and ethics. Just last Saturday, Todd took some flaky New Age pamphlet about the 12 Theories of Evolution, barfed it back onto a page and called it insight; and as for Fralic, I've known the woman to do half a page on ice cream cones.

I'd like to explain briefly what I think is the biggest problem at the heart of journalism, and to do that I'll have to tell you a story. Think of it as a microcosm.

It happened about a year ago, in a small town in Pennsylvania. It was one of those local brouhahas that gets picked up as a larger story around the country, and concerned a garage door in Minersville on which appeared an image of the Virgin Mary at the same time every evening.

With the power of Google News, I was able to see quite a few of those reports, and it was pretty clear to me almost immediately that the image of the Virgin Mary was caused by the light of the setting sun shining off a window across the street.

But that idea was only briefly suggested, if it was mentioned at all. Instead, what we got was a stream of stories all following the same formula: laying out the story, shots of the crowds gathered, a quote from a weepy fat woman overwhelmed by the 'miracle', another quote from a skeptic saying he wasn't sure what it all meant, and finally some sort of banal observation about how there was no way to say for certain, but it sure inspired strong feelings in people.

But I didn't really have to describe the formula to you, did I, Mr. Hume? You're in this business yourself, after all.

Now, I'm pretty much 100% sure that every single journalist in Minersville knew what was really happening. Every journalist there knew perfectly well that this was just light reflecting off a window. But not one of them was willing to say what they knew to be true. Truth as an ideal is not a popular idea in journalism anymore.

I'm cynical enough not to be surprised at the crowds of gullible people who came from miles around hoping to see a miracle. I suspect that there's a form of peer pressure involved; everybody pretends to believe so that nobody has to feel stupid. But I believe that journalists should be held to a higher standard; they have a obligation to the truth that should trump any concerns for 'fairness' or 'a good story.' If journalists won't say what they know to be true, then...what's the fucking point?

Let me take that idea a step farther. I know that you're probably preparing a counterargument that involves the idea of being 'balanced.' "Tell both sides of the story, and let people make up their own minds," seems to be the justification.

The problem there, ironically, is that when you present both sides of an argument equally, you actually take away the very tools we need to make up our own minds. If there is balance, then there is nothing to base a choice on. Like a donkey midway between two carrots, the reader can't really do anything but default to his preexisting beliefs. Small wonder then, that two people of opposing viewpoints can both read the same article and come away feeling that their beliefs were supported.

Let me quote you back at yourself:
"Do you want to leave the news to wealthy dilettantes or those with vested interests -- spin doctors, marketers and propagandists?"

In light of that, what on Earth am I to make of the fact that directly underneath your article was a piece by Christoph Kind on the benefits of naturopathy? Naturopathy isn't really all that ambiguous; it's pretty obviously composed of hucksters fighting for the right to make a buck as healers, even though the average restaurant manager probably has more insight into, say, allergies than Kind does. Kind also happens to be president of the B.C Naturopathic Association, and that sound you hear is the knife in Truth's back. All in the name of balance, I suppose.

I'm curious, Mr. Hume. What do you personally think of Christoph Kind and what he wrote? Are you willing to say it in print?

I doubt it. But that's journalism for you.

Regards,
Steve Vanden-Eykel