The End

Whatever happened to principles? Whatever happened to reasoned debate? Have we all accepted the perspective of the lawyers we see on television?ⁱ It’s right there on “LA Law,” “Boston Legal,” and “The Good Wife,” among others, and the common theme seems to be that, as so many coaches have put it, “winning isn't everything – it's the only thing.” Right and wrong are secondary issues if they're considered at all. It's all about winning. The rationalization that everyone deserves good representation (even criminals)ⁱⁱ is just so much bunkum. It certainly doesn't apply to those who cannot afford good representation. But for those who can pay, the goal is to beat the opposition, even if you have to hold your nose while you do it.

And I, an ultracrepidarian of the first water (if self-proclaimed experts are so ranked) understand the legal system as one akin to sports. Getting the edge on the opposition is more important than being better than him. If you win, you are better. Virtue is not its own reward – winning is. If you can convince a jury that the party you represent is right, no matter how you do it, or whether it is true or not, you win. And that's all that counts.

All that counts. Yes. The first decision is that your client has to win. Only afterward is a plan formulated as to how to accomplish this goal. It may require the discrediting the opposition – the presentation of “facts” that support your claim and the exclusion of those that suggest otherwise. It may require distortion, suppression of information, intimidation, or “technicalities,” but as long as you achieve your goal and aren't shown to have violated the law or “legal ethics,” you're home free. Or probably not free but very expensive. But all's fair in love and law.ⁱⁱⁱ

What it all boils down to is that first decision. And irrespective of the facts, it is that your client wins. Once the end is clear, the means are inevitable. The interpretation of whatever information is available must justify whatever you've already decided. First the decision, then the evidence. It's like “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.” First the sentence. Then the verdict.

Unfortunately that's the way too much of what we experience originates. The motive is not always venal, and participants would vigorously deny any intent to mislead. They would decry any suggestion that the end justifies the means. They would defend their actions with the contention that they are trying to get at the truth. Lawyers and other physical and mental athletes may put winning above “right,” but those of whom I speak would maintain that what they do is in the interest of truth and right.

Perhaps the largest marketplace for the attitude that the end justifies the means can be found in the media.^iv From a “macro” standpoint that means the bias of the organ itself – the viewpoint of the owner or owners of the organization distributing what it claims to be the news. While we pride ourselves on our free press – on the right of a publication to express its opinions openly – we assume that what is presented as objective news is neutral. That, however, is often not the case. By the selection of subjects and articles presented^v the media tell us what is important for us to know, and by the choices of photos, captions, and headlines they implant their prejudices^vi in us. And all-too-often they use unchecked material if it corresponds to their own biases.^vii Fact-checking is of greatest value when it raises questions about a view contrary to your own.^viii Otherwise it's a luxury that is often bypassed in the interests of the need to “scoop” everyone else while limiting costs.^ix After all, a free press is expensive, so only the rich can make their views known to a wide audience. The piper calls the tune.

So if the publisher/editor/whatever has a bias, and that is almost certainly the case, it will most probably be reflected in the way news is presented. “Journalists” will be employed who use their articles to promote a point of view – subjective rather than objective reporting of “news” by “advocacy journalists”; use will be made of releases from organs known to falsify, with the publication of questionable (or obviously false) “information” in the interest of “balance”; there will be prominent placement of false claims with inconspicuous admission of their inaccuracy several days later – if there is any correction at all; and, since most people only read the beginnings of articles, that will be a good place to present self-serving claims, while reserving refutations for areas less likely to be read like somewhere near the end of the article, especially if it is on another page.

Perhaps the reporters and editors act as they do in order to keep their jobs,^x or perhaps they have sought positions in media organizations that share their prejudices. The bottom line, however, is that the conclusions come first, and the “facts” presented are arranged to support those conclusions. It's very much like law. Discredit the opposition – especially if your own case is weak. Journalistic ethics, like legal ethics mustn't be allowed to get in the way of the mission,^xi especially if they can be avoided. In this case the goal is to convince the audience that your ideas should be accepted.

That's the problem. Our minds are made up. Facts only serve to confuse people so we only tell others what we want them to hear and believe. In journalism as in law, the end justifies the means.

 

Next episode: “Justifies?” – It's not always so clear.

I        I can't believe that the profession would tolerate such behavior in real life.

ii        Especially those who pay well.

iii      The same is true in sports. Whether professional or “amateur” (for example college athletics), they're big money-makers, and bending the rules, or ignoring faulty decisions in your favor while protesting those harmful to your team, are necessary evils. They're not even evil. They're part of the game.

iv       This is hardly the first time I've expressed this opinion and it's probably not going to be the last. We are dependent on information in virtually all we do, and we always want to know what is happening locally, nationally, and internationally. We want to believe what we read and what we see. But the majority of Americans – not only the conspiracy theorists – don't trust the “news” presented to them by the media.

v       There has to be selection since there is not room to present everything that is touted as news.

vi       The TRUTH.

vii      Retraction of a prominently made claim in an inconspicuous location a few days later may not be seen, but publishers' lawyers assure the publishers that it meets their obligations.

viii     It is certainly a FALSE idea that no one in his right mind would believe. It results from the propaganda of the evil, and must be corrected.

ix       A free press is actually very expensive. First Amendment rights are primarily the rights of those who can afford them.

x        Never take seriously the owner who loudly proclaims a “hands off” policy when it comes to reporting the news. Employees don't – they know better. They know what is expected of them.

xi       For the athletes there's the concept of “sportsmanship,” But no one pays much attention to that unless the public complains and there's a risk of losing some of the audience and revenues.