‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers’

Last updated on: September 27, 2016 at 7:20 pm by Fred Clark

‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers’ 2016-09-27T19:20:35-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That quote from Shakespeare’s 2 Henry VI hung on a plaque in my dad’s law office. Dad knew that many people saw it as just another lawyer joke, as an expression of contempt for his profession. But he also knew what the quote really meant in context. The character saying that, Dick the Butcher, was plotting treason. Shakespeare and Dick both understood that such plots could only succeed if they eliminated the “lawyers” who would deem them illegitimate. By putting those words in the mouth of Dick the Butcher, Shakespeare was commending lawyers as arbiters of law, legitimacy and truth.

Beware of anyone who wants to eliminate all arbiters of law, legitimacy, and truth. Beware of anyone who dismisses law, or fact-checking, or academics, or science, or data. If they see those arbiters as a threat, then they likely see truth and reality as an obstacle. They’re probably trying to lead you somewhere unreal.

Umpire

Conservative AM talk radio host Charlie Sykes has come to regret playing along with Dick the Butcher’s plan now that decades of killing all the lawyers has eliminated any need to correlate words with reality:

One of the chief problems, Sykes said, was that it had become impossible to prove to listeners that Trump was telling falsehoods because over the past several decades, the conservative news media had “basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers.”

“There’s nobody,” he lamented. “Let’s say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it’s a falsehood. The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that, ‘By the way, you know it’s false.’ And they’ll say, ‘Why? I saw it on Allen B. West.’ Or they’ll say, ‘I saw it on a Facebook page.’ And I’ll say, ‘The New York Times did a fact check.’ And they’ll say, ‘Oh, that’s The New York Times. That’s bulls—.’ There’s nobody — you can’t go to anybody and say, ‘Look, here are the facts.'”

“And I have to say that’s one of the disorienting realities of this political year. You can be in this alternative media reality and there’s no way to break through it,” Sykes continued. “And I swim upstream because if I don’t say these things from some of these websites, then suddenly I have sold out. Then they’ll ask what’s wrong with me for not repeating these stories that I know not to be true.”

Donald Trump is the extreme end-product of this process, but it’s been a long time coming. There was the decision to oppose all things Al Gore by making the chemical properties of carbon a matter of partisan dispute, so that now denying the undeniable fact of climate change is a mandatory Republican stance. There was Colin Powell at the U.N., and “yellowcake” and the flood of lies used to sell the invasion of Iraq to allies, and to Congress, and to the public. The 2004 election brought us swift-boating. In 2008 we met Sarah Palin. And Mitt Romney moved the process along in 2012 — not just by uttering an endless stream of falsehoods about his opponent, but by steadfastly refusing to stop doing so after being repeatedly called out and corrected.

Longtime press critic Jay Rosen has a smart piece exploring what this all means for journalists trying to cover the 2016 election and the campaign of a compulsive fantasist like Donald Trump, “Asymmetry between the major parties fries the circuits of the mainstream press“:

Now imagine what happens when over time the base of one party, far more than the base of the other, begins to treat the press as a hostile actor, and its own establishment as part of the rot; when it not only opposes but denies the legitimacy — and loyalty to the state — of the other side’s leader; when it prefers conspiracy theory to party-friendly narratives that at least cope with verified fact; when it is scornful of the reality that in a divided system you never get everything you want.

… Trump’s threat to the press goes far deeper than his flagrant abuse of journalists and the threatening noises he has made about libel law.

When I say he’s trying to break the press, I mean the entire system that gives honest journalism a role in the republic. Trump is running against such basic notions as:

“we need a fact-based debate or there can’t be consent of the governed;”

“there’s a public record that cannot just be wiped away;”

“a candidate’s position on major issues should be made clear to the voters;”

“lying cannot become a universal principle in politics without major damage to our democracy.”

Not only is he running against such fundamentals, the continuity of which is assumed by all forms of campaign coverage, but journalists are the ones who understand best his assault on these basic principles. They’re living it every day. Of course, he’s running against them, too.

A political style that mocks the idea of a common world of facts — and gets traction with that view — is an attack on the very possibility of honest journalism. Campaign journalists have to find a way to oppose this style without becoming election-season opponents of Trump himself, which is not, I think, their proper role. Nothing in their training or tradition would have prepared them for this moment.

I first saw this unpreparedness that Rosen describes back in 2004, when I was working for the largest newspaper in Delaware. That state happened to be home to one of the leaders of the “Swift Boat” campaign that was spreading demonstrable lies about Sen. John Kerry’s military service. Those lies were about matters of public record — publicly available documents prepared decades earlier by the U.S. Navy. But our paper printed the claims and assertions of the “Swift Boat” smear campaign without also printing the documented facts that rebutted them. “That’s not our job,” the managing editor told me, “it’s John Kerry’s job and we don’t work for the Kerry campaign.” (Then I said that we apparently don’t work for our readers either, since we didn’t see any professional obligation to give them the truth as accurately as we could. And then things got kind of shout-y.)

Eventually, we ran a piece allowing the Kerry campaign to “respond” to the allegations. The claims and counter-claims of the two sides were presented as symmetrically legitimate, with a passing mention that Naval records themselves also had some sort of opinion on what the Naval records said, but that was neither here nor there. The overweening concern in all of that was to appear disinterested so as to be insulated from any accusation of partisan bias. But my boss confused being a dis-interested arbiter with being un-interested in accuracy. And that was exactly what Dick the Butcher’s Swift Boat Veterans Against the Very Idea of Truth was counting on.

Our paper was not alone in dropping the ball when it came to that swift-boat BS. Twelve years later, journalists are now faced with an even more extreme version, but even if they’re belatedly recognizing the need for a better approach to confirming the accuracy of what they publish they’re now less-equipped to do so. By the time I lost my job in the fourth round of lay-offs at that paper, I’d seen more than half of our news-gathering and editorial desks emptied. And that’s been the pattern everywhere, with tens of thousands of people once employed to confirm accuracy now forced to find another way to make a living. “The first thing we do, let’s lay-off all the fact-checkers.”

Journalism — as a profession, or as a craft, or as a business — is even less prepared for the challenge of Donald Trump than it was in 2004. Rosen’s critique is dead-on. His prescription, alas, is woefully unspecific:

Now we’re here and novelty demands novelty. If journalists are to rise to the occasion in the final six weeks of this campaign, they will have to find a style of coverage as irregular as Trump’s political style.

Previous Post

September 26, 2016

Taste the rainbow

Next Post

September 28, 2016 The emotional integrity of a sincere liar

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Ruth was from Moab and chose to stay with her mother-in-law Naomi.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE