Written by John Turner   

I’ve done my best to keep up with stories about Keith Olbermann’s breakup with MSNBC. Not only have I read the reports themselves, I have worked through generous samples of the commentary that has followed a number of the articles.

There are many people who dislike Olbermann intensely and many who call him vile names. But not once among the articles or the comments have I seen a single instance where he was charged specifically with using falsehood. The people who despise him don’t seem to care in the least whether he tells the truth.

We’ve had immense debate in this country over the past ten years about whether the mainstream media leans to the left or to the right. You can find some evidence for either side. But it seems to me there is one way in which the major media do support the right and that is that they’re pretty much indifferent to whether someone is speaking truth or falsehood. They’re all over the question of whether someone is on the left, or on the right, or in the center. They’re also intensely interested in whether someone is fierce or moderate. But the truthfulness of a public figure appears to be unimportant to them.

Returning to Olbermann, we often see him compared to Glenn Beck. It’s an article of faith among many journalists that if one side has extremists then the other side must have extremists, and that the extremists on either side are essentially equal in all significant respects. John Avlon, for example, has made a career of this argument, calling the people on either end of the political spectrum “wing nuts.” Avlon's article in The Daily Beast this morning is headed by opposing pictures of Beck and Olbermann. I don’t know if the author had a hand in placing those photographs, but his rhetoric has supported the notion that Beck and Olbermann are pretty much the same sort of advocates. This itself is a lie that few seem to disapprove.

I’ll admit there has been some commentary about what has come to be called “false equivalency,” usually from people who are described as being on the left. But little of such analysis has made its way into mainstream media. In most cases, once someone has been labeled an extremist, that’s all there is to be said. Readers are supposed to garner all that’s necessary from the label alone.

The possibility that some extremists may be telling the truth whereas others are lying is not to be uttered. This ban can have force only in a journalistic atmosphere in which the truth itself is considered extreme. Reasonable people fuddle towards the center, and demonstrate, thereby, how superbly reasonable they are.

There are notable journalists -- Mark Halperin comes to mind -- who assert forthrightly that it is not journalism’s function to try to bring the truth to the citizens, other than by accurately quoting political operatives.

The public has little opportunity to make sensible choices when the media provides them scant evidence about what’s actually happening in government and politics. Does a bill provide for death panels? The media will tell you that some say yes and so say no. Will a piece of legislation reduce government expenditures over the coming decades? You won’t get much guidance from the media about which “experts” employ careful analysis and which simply pontificate.

Truth may not matter much in politics. But it does matter in life. A nation which bases its actions on truth is more likely to be healthy than one which follows falsehood and propaganda. And government actions do have major influence on the health of the people. They frequently determine who will live and who will die, and they strongly influence the quality of life available to most citizens. In other words, they count. They are not just entertainment for talk show fans.

The easy assumption that truth lies along the middle, whether or not you can tell where or what the middle is, seriously misleads American democracy. Truth is truth, regardless of where it reposes along a political spectrum. And lies are lies. I’m not saying it’s always easy to tell the difference between them. Liars study carefully how to appear truthful. But there is a difference and it’s a difference we used to think good journalism could help us grasp.

If someone tells you there’s not much difference between Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, so far as truth is concerned, then he himself is engaging in falsehood. He may not know it, but he is. I understand that’s my opinion and doesn’t technically qualify as fact. But it’s a truthful opinion and it can be distinguished from an opinion offered for sake of personal advantage.

It really comes down to a question of values. Does one care more about the truth or more about gaining a point for his side? I wish we had more journalists allied to the truth, and fewer in the camp of journalistic respectability.