The Neutering Of Reporters

Jon Rappoport | December 31 2004

No, this isn't about the government demanding to know reporters' sources. It's about something I knew way back in the mid-1980s and forgot.

It resurfaced in my mind as I was trying to get out the Clomid-steroid story to the mainstream press.

It's quite simple, really. Every working journalist and every editor knows that a story which breaks new ground MUST corral some expert or government spokesperson to confirm WHAT THE REPORTER HAS ALREADY FIGURED OUT FOR HIMSELF.

Otherwise, it's not fit to print.

In the Clomid piece, I didn't waste hours and hours trying to find a medical honcho who would go on the record and attack Clomid as the repellent and toxic disaster that it is.

I just went to the PDR and found all the references.

But Clomid has not been subject to any recent FDA safety panels; it has not been the subject of a mea culpa by the manufacturer. That's the rub.

You see, a mainstream reporter isn't supposed to figure out things for himself. He isn't supposed to put all the obvious pieces together on his own. THAT'S for the editorial page.

The reporter works his butt of and assembles a 2 and then another 2, and then he adds them up and gets 4. He takes it to his editor. The editor says, "Yes, I see how your got the first 2. That was good work. And I see how you dug and came up with the other 2. That was even better. But when you added 2 and 2 and got 4---that was your own inference. We can't go with that. You're going to have to find an expert who agrees that 2 plus 2 equals 4."

The reporter says, "But 2 and 2 DOES equal 4."

The editor says, "Yeah. I know. But we still need an expert to say so."

Sometimes the reporter, if he wants to play this childish and stupid and demeaning game, can find such an expert. But sometimes he can't. Because the expert sees where the reporter is heading and doesn't want to attach his name to the obvious conclusion.

So after a few months, the reporter gets the idea. He either plays by these rules, or he doesn't have a job.

The rules become embedded in his head. He forgets how to think and reason for himself. He's a slave. A good boy.

He also realizes that for every expert he can unearth who will agree that 2 and 2 equals 4, he needs to find another expert who'll say 5 instead of 4. You know, the balancing act. Fair and balanced.

Suppose you, as a reporter, investigate a murder and assemble a whole array of facts that show the crime had to have been done by a pro. The method of the killing---there are 50 facts that point directly to the work of a pro. An amateur with a grudge just couldn't have done it. One blow with a very heavy sword took the victim's head clean off. A perfect stroke. No stutters. Whisshhhhh. Head clean off.

Except the suspect in custody is a twelve-year-old girl.

Go ahead. Write your piece. Present the facts. Make your inference. Take the story to your editor. He'll say---you know what he'll say. That story will die on the vine unless you get at least one expert (five is better) who'll assert, essentially, that the girl couldn't have done it.

If you think the girl gets released by the cops with an apology every time, you're wrong. Dead wrong.