Choosing Alternative Histories

Legacy journalism is caught up in a trap of its own making: trying to write contemporary alternative history fantasy.

A fascinating scholarly endeavor is the “what if?” of alternative history writing. What if the South had won the Civil War? What if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor? What if Hitler had not invaded Russia?

When well informed by seasoned research into the actions and causes of turning points, and then by deep knowledge of the social and political terrain of the contenders, the different outcomes appear plausible, and sometimes scary.

The writing of alternative history entertains while stimulating deeper consideration and appreciation about much that, in retrospect at least, we take for granted.

Sometimes there were real choices that might have actually been made, that may have spun a much different present.

Alternatively, alternative histories can founder into fantasy when deep trends are slighted, these having created overwhelming momentum from which there was no turning away, or where determined or divided leaders arising through the process of those trends are personally immovable, or where the writer is imposing speculation or bias upon the facts that are well documented.

Contemporary journalists engage in the tough task of reporting what is now occurring, and the reasons why. Inevitably, they must select what’s germane and verifiable. Their reports are both an influence upon the present unfolding of events, as well as a source for future historians to – perhaps with the benefit of retrospective scholarship and dispassion – track what happened in the past.

When journalists do not hold to established standards to ensure reasonable credibility – factuality and relevance -- their product is rightfully subject to criticism. Errors happen.

When crucial trends or interpretations are ignored or downplayed, even in the face of confirming events, or contradictory evidence, the journalist’s product is rightfully subject to ridicule as unprofessional.

When these journalistic failures are repeated, form a pattern, their product is not reporting but a prejudiced abuse of journalism, and of the public’s right to know, which directly undermines and attacks a central foundation of democracy. Such is professional propaganda.

Journalists’ fault may be excused at times by deadline pressure cutting short full inquiry, or by the subjects of their reports being mealy mouthed. But, when the product is time and again shoddy, these reasons become excuses for laziness or camouflage for bias.

A generation ago, during the heated debates over Vietnam, newspapers and networks reflected on their mission to inform. Newspapers launched op-ed pages and networks launched debate programs to broaden the range of viewpoints. Newspapers, also, hired ombudsmen to, from within, press for higher journalistic standards.

Both have had some success. A broader range of viewpoints is presented via op-eds and talk-argument shows, although some papers and networks cast too narrow a net. Occasionally an ombudsman reveals, and management agrees to correct, errors in reporting. More often ombudsmen act as lackeys who proffer thin excuses for their fellows, or who avoid their primary responsibility by either selecting some strawhorse reader’s letter to launch into the ombudsman’s own screed or use their column space to write opinions on subjects unrelated to journalism.

The issues of partial journalism – partially factual, partially unprofessional or biased – continue. Indeed, they seem to have increased over the past generation.

Several reasons have been put forth, and somewhat documented by data and by insider and analysts’ exposures. The proportion has increased dramatically of mainstream journalists sharing a common worldview and politics that is more left-of-center than the public. This is inevitably reflected in shared selection of foci and attitudes that inadequately treats alternatives. At the same time, the number of field and foreign journalists and bureaus has decreased markedly. This reduces the pool of diversity and of frontline informed reporting that factually challenges incestuously poorly researched and slanted opinions masquerading as reporting.

In effect, much, too much, of mainstream journalism is engaged in writing alternative history, and much of that so strays from careful knowledge and analysis as to be fatally fantastical.

The primary current example involves Iraq. For months, the leading media frontpaged and repeated every current, politically exploitive charge from leading Democrats that they had been deceived over the decision for the United States to go into Iraq. It was not until the administration forced focus upon these very same Democrats’ stentorian speeches in the ‘90’s through 2003, and their access to the same intelligence reports as the administration, that more factual reporting occurred. And, even then, the counter was characterized as an attack rather than a belated, necessary corrective response, in order to demean the administration.

Every frontpage for months highlighted the president’s relatively low “approval” rating as evidence that Americans reject our Iraq involvement, not mentioning that as many administration critics were unhappy with excess spending or with inadequate response to the Democrat jeremiads. Page 4 of the Washington Post, on November 27,
reported a poll (also reported at Townhall, with some more detail) from a respected bipartisan source that 70% said Democrat criticism of the war hurts troop morale. Only 30% believe the Democrats’ are doing so to help U.S. efforts in Iraq; 52% see it as “trying to gain partisan advantage.” Only 16% “support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.” The public sees through the transparency of Democrat and legacy media alternative history fantasies.

The Los Angeles Times’ lead political reporter, Ron Brownstein, without blushing, similar to so many others of his ilk, doesn’t even bother to fact-check former Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle’s echo of John Kerry’s infamous vivid memory imagination of being in Cambodia. “Tom Daschle…remembers the exchange vividly,” that he asked President Bush on September 18 to delay the Iraq war authorizing vote in September 2002 “so we could depoliticize it.” RealClearPolitics blog went to Google to fact-check this “dirty revisionism.” Indeed, on September 17, before meeting the president, Daschle said the opposite, Democrats wanting the vote then to get it out of the way before the 2002 election that they opposed forceful measures to deal with the international threat brought home to voters by 9/11.

The Associated Press two days ago called “Iraq a Tricky Issue for Dems Eyeing 2008.” “Any position they take is a gamble given the uncertain terrain in Iraq and the United States in three years.” Politically exploitive considerations trump war-making will, the ultimate determinant of success, not to mention trumping the fate of freedom for tens of millions in the MidEast or the national security of the United States.

Lorie Byrd gets to the heart of the matter: “[T]he actions of the Democrats over the past three years have exposed them as incapable of governing in today’s world of global Islamic terrorism.” One might add that the actions of the mainstream media over the past three years have exposed them as incapable of practicing journalism in today’s world of global dangers.

The repeated theme of an intransigent enemy, so all is fruitless, is belied by insurgents wanting to negotiate. And, on and on, across almost any theme pressed by the leading frontpages and networks.

The primary fatality of the leading media’s alternative fantasy history is seen in the rapid erosion of readership and viewership of legacy mainstream newspapers and TV networks, as the customers of information seek alternatives. This reduction in common venues for civic discussion is harmful to civil democracy and discourse, as more readers and viewers become ensconced in highly partisan cul de sacs.

The primary beneficiary is the internet blogs, presenting broader ranges of professional research and informed views – among the many that aren’t. Experienced, honest reporters have learned how to quickly reference the internet to fact-check and gain added perspective. Those who continue to believe they can get away with slip-shod work, or with partial reporting, or outright slants, are quickly revealed by the internet ombudsmen.

New aggregators of internet news and information are emerging to cull the huge internet flows, largely through the peer review that usually works so well in science. New opportunities to collect contemporary reporting by topic are emerging to ease fact-checking and test partiality of self-serving memory. Attrition by confrontation with this public ombudsman calls to task those in journalism who believe they can escape or ignore standards, and aids the conscientious to better serve their craft and customers.

Thus, the future of quality journalism is rosier than one might expect from hearing those bemoaners who fear losing their comfy sinecures and fringes, or from hearing the roars of furious advocates or partisans.

There will always be a need and a market for mass venues of information, and an efficiency and an effectiveness of scale and resources that only mass venues can achieve.

It may well be smaller than in the past, and less remunerative, but that is the creative destruction faced by all industries, and a process that none can escape behind protective walls.

Mainstream journalism is facing the same process faced by our heavy industries. More, higher quality steel is being produced in America, with far fewer workers and plants, but more competitors, than decades ago. More, higher quality autos are being produced in America, with far fewer workers and plants, but more competitors, than decades ago. In all cases, there is far less pollution, and the inflation adjusted prices are considerably less.

Few in 1960 could accurately chart these developments in heavy industry. Few in 2005 could accurately chart the development of mass journalism. At least not if one focuses on what exists.

One must focus on what the customers expect and demand: quality and reasonable accessibility. Any new media contender will have to offer, and will be measured by, better responses. Politicians will increasingly be measured by and held to account for their veracity. Democracy and America can only benefit. History will judge alternative history fantasies harshly.