How can we save journalism from modern ‘journalists’?

(American Thinker)—It’s been 11 years since investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson first exposed how the Barack Obama administration was illegally spying on her. Although she persistently pursued the case in court, no senior Obama administration officials have ever been held accountable. The incident remains remarkable not only because it exposed yet another example of illegal, unconstitutional, and unethical behavior by the Obama administration (remember when Attorney General Eric Holder was caught arming international drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious for reasons only he could justify?) but also because the silence from the American press was deafening.

There was some petty outrage, to be sure, but if America’s leading news outlets had really wanted to defend free speech against government tyranny, they would have forcefully condemned Obama for presiding over an administration at war with the First and Fourth Amendments. They would continue to this day to run stories reminding Americans that no one of significance from the Obama administration has been punished. And they would never cease to point out that neither Obama nor his lieutenants have ever apologized for their impeachable transgressions or open betrayals of their constitutional oaths. Judging by their lackluster response, it appears that most corporate news reporters have tacitly approved of the Obama administration’s spying operations against the press — at least as long as the “right kind” of reporters were the ones being targeted.

Much to the dismay of the Obama regime and its Praetorian press supporters, Sharyl Attkisson has always been an “old school” reporter — that is, she follows major news stories wherever they take her and regardless of how her investigations affect the political fortunes of those feted by The New York Times or CNN. Without fear or favor, she strives to expose the truth — not her truth or the preferred truth of those who pay her, but the truthBecause she adheres to that journalistic credo, she is a thorn in the side of those in power.

In another time or place, where journalistic independence was considered a necessary safeguard for preserving both free speech and a free press, Attkisson would be admired as a paragon of her profession. And to those who appreciate her work, she is. But for far too many national reporters who would gladly sacrifice the truth for the promise of future prestige, her story is best ignored. Why? Because she is a physical reminder that American journalism is a phony.

Contrary to the banal assurances that come from intellectual flyweights like Jim Acosta, reporters regularly take sides, omit important facts, and manipulate the reporting of breaking news. Virtually all practicing journalists today are leftists. Fabian socialists, Marxist ideologues, Democratic partisans — however they identify, they all see themselves as romantic figures destined to influence history. WHO, What, When, WhereAnd Why are for the schlubs. They are here to stories of engineersand they take their job very seriously.

“Narrative engineer” is such a perfect nickname for today’s reporters. It appeals to their special kind of vanity. Most would like to be known for their literary talents, but lack the ability to tell good stories. Most would like others to see them as people with the kind of brainpower associated with engineers, but unfortunately they struggle with basic geometry. By seeing themselves as master builders of human events, journalists can carve out a privileged caste for themselves somewhere between academic and priest. And if someone were to honor them as “professors” or bow reverently in their presence, members of the journalistic clergy would surely have no objection.

This kind of bombast offends “old school” reporters. One of the easiest ways to tell if a journalist is more interested in discover the truth or design a story is to look at that person’s biography. “Narrative engineers” love to tout their journalism degrees, grants, exotic assignments, and the list of big-name companies that paid them to say what those companies want them to say. “Old school” reporters don’t care to tell you where they went to college — or if they even attended one. Rather than point you to their polished resumes, they’d rather let their work product do the talking. They’re not fond of showing off awards or illustrious former employers, because both of those mirror the mission statements of powerful corporations or wealthy patrons — exactly the kinds of groups and people that “old school” journalists inherently distrust.

Good muckrakers distrust power — in all its forms. When a self-described expert says something is true, the muckraker says, “Prove it.” When a government agent says something is true, the muckraker says, “Prove it.” When another journalist says something is true, the muckraker says, still says“Prove it.” Neither titles, nor positions of power, nor membership in the journalistic clergy imply absolute truth.

In fact, all of these things are red flags for any good reporter. When something is so complex that understanding it requires expertise, it is imperative that dissident experts are consulted as intellectual counterparts to uncover hidden biases. If a government minister claims something as true, a reporter must assume it is false. What is the point of a fourth estate if it does not take a position that is constantly in tension with — or even diametrically opposed to — all those who hold the reins of political power? And when a journalist reports something as true, the first thought of other journalists must always be: let’s check your sourcesOnly by knowing WHO say What And Why that person says that no one can judge the veracity of a statement. A journalist who accepts another journalist’s account of events without first investigating the sources for that information is no journalist at all!

If you take the last paragraph to heart, you will agree that journalism as a truth-seeking profession is dead — or, if it is not dead, it is on its back, clutching its chest like a fat man after one too many sausages. It is rare these days to find reporters who value research and legwork more than ready-made sound bites from the White House. It is much easier to be fed information than to track down and discover the truth. Reporters would rather consult their on-demand contact list of “who’s who” of government celebrities than seek out unknown and powerless insiders with important stories to tell.

Journalism has in many ways become the ultimate manifestation of credentials—or the celebration of prestigious credentials. In the old days, it didn’t matter to an editor where a young reporter went to school or whether he played tennis with a cabinet secretary’s daughter. What mattered was what stories the youngster was pursuing at the time. The job was such a pain in the ass that City Hall would put you on a watch list. Newspapers weren’t looking for golf buddies or country club acquaintances; reporting was the calling of working-class America, who enjoyed picking on the man! Somewhere along the line, when colleges began teaching students what to think instead of how to think and mega-corporations bought up newspapers for a song, callous journalists were replaced by servile lackeys.

What exactly are “narrative engineers”? During the Cold War, we called them “Soviet propagandists.” In the world of espionage, they’re known as “disinformation specialists.” In every time and place, they are skilled liars who distort reality and spread falsehoods. They are protectors of the regime and agents of the state.

None of those disgusting synonyms for modern journalism describe Sharyl Attkisson. She is a truth-teller who does not bow to the powerful. That is why Barack Obama treated her like an enemy within.