When Everything is Nothing

In The Incredible Lightness of Minimalism, I wrote:

"What I am calling "minimalism" is a lack of imagination tied to an antiquated standard that says political news reporters are not responsible for finding and reporting the truth - reporters are responsible for reporting "maybe facts" - claims and statements that reporters are to accept as true in  an almost "hands off" manner, until and unless "fact checking" establishes otherwise, or the "other side" refutes them in a debate based on reason, supported by facts. But what if that reliance on reason by "all sides" never comes? What if one "side" is happy with their truth supported by their claims?"

The larger point here is that traditional journalists, in order to maintain an appearance of objectivity, tread ever so lightly in instances of possible (or even likely) wrongdoing by holders of high office, that they bend over backwards to avoid unfair accusations - SO MUCH SO -- that their reporting becomes laughably understated.

So it is in the NYT "Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Made Millions in 2017" with the subheadline:

"Ethics experts have said the activity could raise questions of possible conflicts of interest."

"Ethics experts..."
OK, who are we to say? We are only reporters. Who are we to judge corruption?  In fact, we will avoid even mentioning the word "corruption" lest that lead anyone to jump to conclusions. Oops. I mean possible conclusions.

"Ethics experts have said the activity could raise questions..."

Just because we are bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of presenting information that supports potential accusations - accusations that we would never dare make (such as calling a lie a lie until after the first 10,000 or so lies). We dare not say "the activity raises questions..."

Which gives up the game.  The word "questions" provides enough doubt without the soft tone already embedded in the headline.

"...possible conflicts of interest".  Still so careful. "Possible". We are not even sure whether any conflict of interest exists. Our take is so far from the possibility of financial corruption that you would not even suspect the Justice Department is investigating anything. "Conflict of interest" falls short of conveying reality as it is, never mind qualifying it with "possible".

The article assiduously avoids citing specific examples in support of the possibility of corruption. When discussing Ivanka's take from the Trump International Hotel of $3.9 million, the article notes:
"The hotel, just steps from the White House, has prompted concerns from ethics experts, who worried that guests may be trying to curry favor with the president by staying there." But there are many specific examples of heads of state and foreign government reps who have stayed there.

At the end of the day, a literal reading of the headline equates to:

There may be no conflict of interest.

One might even conclude:

Nothing to see here. Experts agree.

And why does the Times avoid any mention of this:

Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE?

Why? Because any objective observer would conclude that widespread corruption persists among the Trumps, that they are joined as a family in government dedicated solely to their own corrupt financial enrichment at the expense of the conduct of policy, foreign and domestic.

But don't count on that article either. The Times writer concludes that it's all a coincidence! Always the need at the Times to minimize the story.

Nothing to see there either!

source:dailykos.com