Truth Monitors

   The prime role of journalism is to report what is said and done, and to explain any relationship with other events and conditions in society.
   That, of course, is a simplistic explanation of journalism's duty as the news media tries to serve the community of readers and viewers. And, of course, there will be opposition from those who perceive themselves to be in power and from their supporters who insist their leaders know what's best for the country and everyone in it.
   But what if they're wrong? Who will say so?
   That responsibility falls to journalists, who monitor what is said and done and compare that to what was said and done in the past, as well as to verify the truth of what politicians and government officials claim.
   One problem, however, is believability. No matter how careful news reporters are in sticking to truth, there are many who refuse to accept journalism reports because they "know" what they believe, they are permanently convinced of their own truths and no amount of persuasive fact can dissuade them.
   They insist on holding to "alternative facts" despite mountains of information and supporting evidence that contradicts what they already "know."
   One of the arguments they use in rejecting news reports is the use of anonymous sources by reporters.
   But police investigators use "confidential informants" regularly, to protect those who supply critical information in a criminal case.
   Intelligence agencies such as the CIA also use "undercover agents" to gather information critical to their investigations.
   There is really little difference among the three investigative groups in gathering information.
   However, journalists make public the information they gather because it is critical in maintaining a free society and upholding democracy.
   When criminals are caught lying about their activities, government officials arrest, prosecute, convict and jail them.
   And when government officials are caught lying about their illegal activities, journalists research, expose and make public that information, thus embarrassing other government officials to take action.
   So without a responsible and active press using confidential sources to expose malfeasance among politicians (and others), a democratic society within a free republic would be in serious danger of falling into the repression of a dictatorship.
   Remember that when politicians rant about "fake news" being spread against them, and insist that people consider "alternative facts" that put them in a more favorable light, especially when a politician has been caught in many lies of his own in the past.
   America is facing this difficulty now, with a president who is not used to people disagreeing with him, and being unable to fire them. He cannot fire all 435 members of the House of Representatives nor can he summarily dismiss all 100 members of the Senate, much as might want to cancel the contracts that voters signed with those in Congress who now disagree with the president.
   Conceivably, he could fire -- albeit indirectly -- the special counsel leading an investigation into the president's activities and whether these activities fit the Constitutional definition of impeachable offenses.
   Does he want to? Probably.
   Can he? Debatable.
   Does he have the cojones to try? Unknown.
   In any case, stay tuned. The truth monitors are on duty.