On the Loss of Journalistic Skepticism

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

01 October 16

kepticism once was considered a universal virtue in American journalism, but – as we’ve seen in too many recent cases – it is now applied selectively. When some demonized American “adversary” is accused of something, skepticism disappears and the charges, no matter how thinly supported by evidence, are accepted as flat fact. Entirely different rules apply for an American “ally.”

However, at Consortiumnews.com, we still believe in the old values that call for skepticism in all cases. So, whether we’re talking about Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi or Vladimir Putin, we insist on checking out the accusations against them and trying to apply fair standards.

That’s not always popular. Many people want us to join the pack and denounce the “evil ones.” But skepticism is what I think you, the reader, deserve. In my view, it’s also what’s best for American democracy, the concept that an informed electorate – not a population numbed by propaganda and disinformation – is central to making the process work.

Honest reporting also is necessary for the world to avoid unnecessary wars. We’ve seen how unprofessional journalism at America’s premier newspapers has contributed to conflicts with Iraq, Libya, Syria and now nuclear-armed Russia. Things are getting more and more dangerous.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).