Controlling the narrative: the new way to cover up lies

Once upon a time, when newspapers were the gold standard for journalism, I had a phone fight about who should shape the news. After raising my voice and slamming down the receiver, I declared myself the winner and did a Rocky prance around the newsroom. 

But, alas, the exchange was but one round. Turns out I lost the match. 

I was an editor at the time. My Apollo Creed was a spokesman for a prominent politician. He was trying to spin coverage favorable to his boss. I was trying to protect my role as journalistic gatekeeper — ensuring what appeared in my pages was the unvarnished truth. 

I believed — as I still do — what I learned as a cub reporter: Journalists have an almost sacred duty to shake out the lies and biases proffered by newsmakers and their agents so readers can get un-spun facts on which to base their opinions. 

But I don’t defend the newsroom against deception anymore. I left newspapering before the economy and newer media put the industry on the ropes. There’s only so many times you can cry “no mas” before you accept defeat in the fight to filter the shills for newsmakers.

My old verbal sparring partner, meanwhile, has expanded his client base and now makes big bucks shaping public opinion on their behalf with minimal resistance from a vigilant press, which shows signs of going down for the count.

In today’s media landscape, shills and self promoters reign supreme. Given the explosion in the number of media outlets and the ever shortening of the news cycle, the notion of a journalistic gatekeeper is archaic. Real-time information is accessible to everyone. Newspapers no longer have a leg up on shaping the news. The news agenda is set by those who can “control the narrative.”

 Politicians and other public figures routinely sidestep the conventional media vetting process, as uneven as it is. They announce major initiatives at events packed with their supporters. Or they publish mirror-mirror-on-the-wall biographies that tell fairest-of-them-all stories.

And while their truthiness may be get by initially, it is low-hanging fruit to the few remaining media watchdogs on the lookout for egregious examples of fabrication. 

Case in point: Republican, Congressman-elect, George Santos, who “embellished”  his résumé To appeal to voters while campaigning. It was only after his election that his lies about his schooling, personal background and business activities where revealed. If the media had been ahead of the story, he may not have won his seat.

Being caught in a lie these days seems a calculated risk worth taking for public figures intent on controlling their own self-aggrandizing narratives. They can always modify their claims and/or question the motives of whomever calls them out. 

Or they can simply repeat what they know is false as if it were true.

It doesn’t seem to matter much. There are so many outlets and what purports to be news moves so fast, damage done by lies can heal over like a paper cut leaving only a faint scar to one’s credibility. The news cycle goes on.

There is no gold standard in journalism anymore. 

Welcome to 1984.