Administration declares War on Truth... Again

The headline reads, Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos. But what could that mean? Is it that the administration thinks it's OK to present its view to the public in pretend news stories disguised as actual reporting? Yes, that's what it means.

The White House "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda'," reports the Washington Post. You mean, the law against covert propaganda does not apply to "covert" "propaganda"? They follow it up by arguing that they can set their own rules, and so the GAO--i.e., Congress--has no authority to tell them how to interpret the law.

(And these are the people who mocked Clinton about the meaning of the word 'is'? Ah, but those were the days before misunderestimation was so common.)

The Washington Post and the New York Times are both editorializing on this matter today. The message is simple: This administration will do whatever it takes to push its agenda, with utter disregard for the truth. I've said it once and I'll say it again, we must insist on the value of truth. If you're not sure why, read my friend Michael Lynch's book, True to Life: Why Truth Matters.

Once you know that there are some false news stories out there, the credibility of all news is damaged--and thereby the hope for any accurate information, any truth. Mercury in the air is not so bad? Social security going bankrupt? Drilling in Alaska urgent? WMDs in Iraq? Cuba preparing to invade? Moon mission a scientific priority but Hubble not-so-useful? Coalition of the willing? "Clear Skies"? Social Security "Reform"? Tax "Reform"? "Patriot" Act?

But hold on. There is a narrow and blurry line, but a line nevertheless, between propaganda and rhetoric, between lies and ideologies. If there is going to be any debate at all, we cannot lump positive spin (talk of "reform" rather than "cuts") with outright deceit of the sort perpetrated in these false news stories. Reasonable people can disagree about the future of Social Security. But they will not be able to rationally debate or compromise unless they can count on one another to make a good faith effort to get the facts right. Democracy requires that we value the truth more than our own opinions.

But this last set of observations points to the truly sinister conclusion: The administration does not want rational debate that might lead to compromise. As the President has said, it's much easier to rule in a dictatorship. Alas.