Diary of a Cynic

   Selective emphasis is what editors do. Selective reality is what politicians would have you believe.
   Inevitably, the two will clash, especially when politicians proclaim things that do not conform to fact or reality, and insist that what they announce is indeed consistent with some concept of "alternative reality."
   Ignorance may be an acceptable excuse in some areas of society, where a lack of knowledge is the result of an educational level that is lower than it should be. In the judicial system, ignorance of the law is no excuse, as magistrates often say. But in politics and government, ignorance of history and current events is not only appalling but can be dangerous when such an affliction clouds the judgement of a government official.
   The higher the position, the more dangerous and appalling the affliction.
   When the president of the United States displays almost daily a level of ignorance that is beyond appalling, the danger to the nation becomes nearly incomprehensible.
   Here are a few recent examples shown by the current occupant of the Oval Office:
   He promised a new law, to prevent illegal immigrants from collecting welfare benefits. Such a law has been in effect for 21 years.
   He proclaimed himself the most prolific president ever in passing new legislation during his first 100 days in office. But to be fair, even as he found himself saying this, he modified the claim to say, well maybe Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he had the Great Depression to deal with.
   The statements, claims and pronouncements so clearly at odds with reality and history come so often and so quickly as to be hard to follow. Taken together, they show an astounding level of ignorance that is hard to comprehend.
  Unless, of course, the statements are not made from lack of knowledge, but are a deliberate falsification of fact and reality.
   In that case, it the right and the duty of editors and writers, whether print or broadcast, to expose such comments for what they are: Lies.
   This is not done out of meanness or political bias, but from a sense of responsibility to voters and citizens to report not only what a politician, government official or corporate executive says, but also whether there is a contrast with fact and reality.
   As to whether the story goes on top of Page One or appears below the fold or is buried on page 17, that is a matter of editorial discretion, deciding on behalf of readers how important the story is.
   One harsh reality of newspaper journalism is that only seven to nine stories, at most, can appear on Page One. Similarly, in a news broadcast limited to half an hour, only about 19 minutes can be devoted to hard news and features. The rest of the time is taken up by the introduction, weather report and forecast, sports and commercials.
   This is the reality that forces selective emphasis, or editing. And this in turn is based on audience preferences, because print and broadcast outlets do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
   When readers and viewers no longer approve of what they see and hear, they switch to other media. It becomes a hard choice, sometimes, for editors to choose which stories to emphasize, balancing their duty and responsibility to bring truthful information to the public, with the danger of antagonizing the public and losing their audience.
   The alternative, however, could well be that government assumes control of the news business and dictates that only stories favoring political goals are allowed to reach the public.
   George Orwell sounded the warning some 70 years ago, with the publication of his novel, "1984."
   It's no accident, then, that the book is once again popular, as well as a successful stage adaptation.