Editorial Roundup

The Concord (N.H.) Monitor, March 10:

In many ways, the United States is built on myths. That’s not to say the nation’s history is a lie, but the facts are not pristine. If they were, the historian’s job would be easy.

The task for journalists, sometimes referred to as “historians of the moment,” is equally difficult. There are many reporters who treat their role as keepers of the record with appropriate reverence. They don’t care about liberal or conservative, pro-gun or anti-gun, Bill Belichick or Pete Carroll; they care only about finding and disseminating truth.

There are also people who call themselves journalists but who are actually subcontractors in American mythmaking. They don’t dig for truth as much as shape a desired version of it.

It’s clear that Bill O’Reilly, a Fox News personality and writer of historical nonfiction, belongs to the latter category.

Last month, Mother Jones published a story headlined “Bill O’Reilly has his own Brian Williams problem,” referring to the NBC news anchor who was suspended for six months for fabricating stories about his experiences in Iraq. The piece disputes O’Reilly’s claims that he witnessed combat while serving as a CBS correspondent in the Falkland Islands (where he never set foot) and El Salvador. Subsequent reporting by other news outlets suggests that O’Reilly exaggerated or outright lied about his experiences during the 1992 L.A. riots and in Northern Ireland. His repeated claims that he heard the gunshot when Lee Harvey Oswald’s friend George de Mohrenschildt killed himself in Florida also appear to be false.

Much has been made about the vastly different ways NBC and Fox have handled what appear to be very similar cases. While Williams can kiss his journalism career goodbye, O’Reilly and his bosses are enjoying skyrocketing ratings. That is a reflection not only of different values at the two networks, and perhaps among their more loyal viewers, but also the difference between the roles of the two men. Williams, for all his flaws, comes from a respected broadcast lineage that includes David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor and Tom Brokaw. Without trust, they cease being relevant. O’Reilly, and Rachel Maddow for that matter, are descendants of a different breed of broadcaster. They are not historians of the moment but willing architects of poorly constructed American myths. They’re entitled to that role if they desire it; after all, not everybody longs to be the voice of truth and reason.

But too many viewers believe everything they hear on shows like “The O’Reilly Factor” because O’Reilly and his ilk speak with authority and sit in anchor chairs ”“ a compelling bit of theater with the appropriate mise-en-scene. That people put their faith in O’Reilly is scary enough, but the ratings spike suggests plenty of viewers don’t really care whether he’s telling the truth as long as he continues to fortify their beliefs and opinions. And that’s downright frightening.

Salon published an article headlined “Bill O’Reilly’s sick pathology: Why his systematic lying is even worse than reported.” The gist of the story is that, sure, O’Reilly’s fabrications about his experiences as a war correspondent are despicable, but they’re harmless compared with the lies he tells his viewers to assist his network’s right-wing agenda. The article cites falsehoods he spread regarding the Iraq War, voter fraud, Benghazi and Dr. George Tiller, and concludes with an indictment of the whole “conservative surround-sound media system.”

While some of the criticisms outlined in Salon seem a little unfair ”“ for example, O’Reilly certainly isn’t the only news personality to espouse the whole “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” argument ”“ the overall point is valid. Fish tales about combat experiences are one thing, but intentionally withholding or decontextualizing information that doesn’t fit a constructed narrative is something else entirely.

Sign In: