Why more reporters should stand up to GOP race-baiting

I'm on the flight to Charlotte, and using a new keyboard for my ipad that I plan on using at the convention. So far so good.

When I was on CNN yesterday, we were debating the relative merits of Chris Matthews' blow up with RNC Chair Reince Priebus, in which Matthews got visibly (and verbally) upset when Priebus started discussing how "foreign" Obama was, then started claiming that Obama "always looks to Europe" for solutions to America's problems. Matthews started by discussing the GOP's subtle embrace of birtherism in the form of Romney's "joke" about Obama's bitrth certificate, then scolded Priebus for the inherent racism in trying to always portrary Obama as foreign.

I expected the GOP guest at CNN to defend the RNC, but wasn't so sure what the host, CNN/Daily Beast's Howie Kurtz would say. Kurtz seemed to think that Matthews went too far. And I suspect most journalists would agree. But should they?

I think it was progressive blogger Atrios who once said that Republicans want journalists to lean to the right, while Democrats simply want reporters to do their job, which is to get the fact right and report them in an objective manner. The problem with much of journalism today is their definition of "objective." To many, it means making little effort to determine if their source is telling the truth, and rather, leaving it up to the reader.

To fill this factual void, a number of the media outlets have created "fact-checking" units that have permission to investigate whether a partisan is telling the truth or not, and tell to reach a conclusion on said veracity, and publish it.

The thing is, why shouldn't reporters be doing this anyway? Perhaps not to the degree that fact-checkers do it, but shouldn't a good reporter refuse to print things they know, or perhaps even suspect, are untrue? Or at the very least, if they know the "fact" is untrue, are they not obligated to either say so in their article, or at least find someone credible who will?

Some reporters simply report the lies unchallenged. Others, report the lie then quote someone from the other party saying that the lie isn't true. But is that really enough? I lie and say that you're a pedophile, you reply correctly "no I'm not," and the reporter prints both, knowing that you're NOT a pedophile? Isn't the damage of the lie already done by at least getting the lie out there? The reporter would do better, the truth would be served better, if at least a credible source were quoted to debunk the lie - if it's a lie about Medicare, find a Medicare expert to say "that's a lie, and every fact-checking outfit has confirmed it's a lie."

Or even better, what's so wrong with reporters quoting the lie and then simply state that the quote has already been disproven by numerous fact-checkers, or whatever.

Then we come to Chris Matthews. What should a reporter do if he believes that the head of the Republican party is trying to race-bait a candidate? He can politely say so, and probably get nowhere. He can do what CNN's Soledad O'Brien did recently, when Romney surrogate John Sununu was attempting to spread the "Obama cut Medicare" lie, and challenge, forcefully the lie, repeatedly. O'Brien's approach was effective, though Sununu became belligerent (just as Priebus did with Matthews, and my conservative panelists did with me yesterday).

It's difficult not to become enraged when confronted by these folks in response to calling out their lies. And clearly, Soledad O'Brien has more patience than Chris Matthews, or I. But I'm just not convinced that Chris Matthews' sin was "losing his temper." I suspect some in the MSM will Matthews' rebuke of Priebus objectionable based on its substance, not its tone. They will object to Matthews making his own factual determination, and just as bad, daring to accuse a GOP leader of racism, because "everybody knows" the Republicans "don't really mean it." And in any case, "both parties do it."

The thing is, both parties don't do it. You don't see President Obama running around making Mormon jokes. And you don't see the Democratic convention slogan reflect an already-debunked lie: We built it! (The Democratic slogan is "Americans coming together").

Both parties don't "do it." One party does, to excess. And it's the same party that created their own faux-media propaganda network nearly twenty years ago in order to better spread their lies and bury the truth. Both parties didn't create such a network, only one did. Both parties don't have Rush Limbaugh, only one does.

It's naive to suspect that any two people, organizations, or political parties have the exact same approach, tone, acceptance of veracity or untruths. But it's that very assumption, combined with the media's reticence at calling the shots, and identifying truth and lies before they hit the print, that are the reason some found Matthews' outburst so distasteful.

What I find distasteful is a media culture that recognizes lies, and bigotry, and refuses to call them out for what they are.

It's naive to suspect that any two people, organizations, or political parties have the exact same approach, tone, acceptance of veracity or untruths. But it's that very assumption, combined with the media's reticence at calling the shots, and identifying truth and lies before they hit the print, that are the reason some found Matthews' outburst so distasteful.It's naive to suspect that any two people, organizations, or political parties have the exact same approach, tone, acceptance of veracity or untruths. But it's that very assumption, combined with the media's reticence at calling the shots, and identifying truth and lies before they hit the print, that are the reason some found Matthews' outburst so distasteful.

What I find distasteful is a media culture that recognizes lies, and bigotry, and refuses to call them out for what they are.What I find distasteful is a media culture that recognizes lies, and bigotry, and refuses to call them out for what they are.