A while ago, in a speech before the Democratic Leadership Council, Bill Clinton suggested that people who feel uncertain preferred somebody who was “strong and wrong” to somebody who was “weak and right.”  What was originally a critique of the Democratic Party's fumbling on national security was of course criticized at the time as a vicious attack on President Bush, but recently it seems like an apt description of the quality of the commentary and analysis provided by our beloved media.  While I understand that we rely on experts, pundits, journalists and the actual subjects of media attention to enlighten us on the finer points of the issues of the day, I am often struck by how little of their output actually turns out to be true or even bears any resemblance to observed reality.

A couple questions: First, how many times have you picked up a newspaper or turned on the TV to find forceful public figures making bogus statements with near impunity, and, far from being critically taken to task for it, are often praised for their insight, or at the very worst, elicit grudging admiration for their audacity?  Secondly, how many times have you had to listen to the same talking heads with the unimpeachable credentials and long track records of professional incompetence offer up pie in the sky wishful thinking as sober analysis?

The reason I ask these questions is that we're going through a period in this nation's history in which we've seen one catastrophic policy disaster after another, and yet if you pay attention to those supposedly in the know there seems to be no one to blame and no definite answers as to how we got here, merely conjecture.  Much of what happens to this country relies on the integrity of its public debate and truth be told we're not well served by those who are supposed to be moderating that debate by giving us the tools to sort out the issues.  Instead the Fourth Estate seems determined to play the role of passive onlooker and or accomplice to the machinations of those acting in bad faith and the American people are often the worse for it. 

In my last post I wrote about how our system demands that the media hold public figures accountable for what they do and say and that includes so-called experts and opinion makers.  So in this “bombast for all and accountability for none” media circus where some views are more equal than others I offer the following suggestion:

2.)  If they're consistently wrong, stop taking them seriously!

I like to think of this as the Richard Perle rule so here goes:

People that have demonstrated a long history of deceit and malfeasance should not be treated as experts, nor should they be given a platform to influence public debate.  Moreover, as a rule,if these people are allowed to contribute to our national debate, they should always be challenged to backup everything they say and do.  Everything!

Truth be told, the people we rely on to hold forth usually have a long track record of positions and statements that even a little research would easily discredit.  So somebody dust off that long lost tool know as “the follow-up question” and use it aggressively.  Think of it not as “trust but verify,” but “verify then trust.”

Hint:  How long do you think the sad red-baiting of the 1950's would have gone on if somebody had actually cornered Joseph McCarthy on the day he announced the list of Communists working at the State Department and then demanded that he produce real evidence and not merely wild accusations?

Okay, that's a veryspeculative question but you can see what I'm getting at. Now how about this?

Hint:  Would you believe me if I told you that there was a group of national security policy experts writing reports in the late 1970's saying that the Soviet Union was not only militarily superior to the U.S., but that its bankrupt command economy would soon surpass the United States in GDP growth?  Now, would you be surprised if I told you many of those same experts were most recently in charge of planning and promoting the Iraq war?

Sadly, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Ledeen, Feith and the rest of the gang are virtually assured subsidized positions of influence in the cozy world of conservative Washington think tanks, but I can't help wondering how much less damage they could have done if someone had long ago discredited they Pax Americana dreams and openly questioned their personal and professional integrity.  When I use the word “questioned” I'm not just talking about Tim Russert playing gotcha with quotes like, “Senator, you said this in 1991, but said the exact opposite in 2002, what gives?”  Instead it's about forcing these people to defend their actions, ideas and statements; it's about weeding out base and false assertions that poison our public debate; and, if the notorious few somehow attain positions of power, it's about being suspicious of their every move.

I know we can't always have perfect information nor are we always willing to call a spade a spade, but many time in our history a healthy skepticism and a strong push for accountability has helped us as a nation to change course when we've needed to.  Ultimately it all comes down to protecting the public good by doing all you can to ensure the integrity of our ongoing public debate called Democracy.  I realize in the fast-paced world of our 24/7 new cycle that the media probably won't be that brave, but it should be.....for our sake, if not its own.