PR Straight Talk

The whole truth and nothing but the truth: in media and PR

by Mike Schwager

(Part I) [excerpted from PR Week Magazine]

Remember that hilarious movie, “Something’s Gotta Give,” starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton? He plays a character by the name of Harry Sanborn who stumbles into a one-night affair at the Southhampton home of his girlfriend’s mother and “possible” soulmate, a successful playwright played by Keaton, known as Erica Barry.

One scene finds them days later accidentally meeting at a Big Apple dining spot, with Erica horrified to find Harry at a table with a beautiful young blond. As she runs outside onto the street feeling betrayed and in a state of anguish, she exasperatingly confesses her love for him. The conversation turns to “truth.” He declares, “I have never lied to you. I have always told you some version of the truth.” To which Erica replies, “The truth doesn’t have versions, okay?”

Or does it? Is the “truth” the communication and comprehension of facts and events as we see them? Is it the objective reporting of what is seen, as journalists are obliged to do? Or is the “truth” not only what is seen as observable and confirmable, but does it in addition include the underlying motivations of what drive facts and events? “The whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

During the Vietnam War, when day in and day out the events of the war were reported to us on the nightly network newscasts, what about the underside of these events? What about the much-hailed “Domino Theory” as being the raison-d’etre for the war? As the theory went, LBJ went to war to keep South Vietnam from falling to the Communists, and to keep other surrounding countries from doing the same.

What kind of integrity is it to base foreign policy on a game of dominos? Yet, to the degree that a games theory drove a war, was the reporting of that war, without the sufficient reporting or challenging of its underlying motives, a communication of “the truth?” Or did the “truth” have versions depending upon whether you were looking at external events, or their cause? Wasn’t the media responsible for more in-depth reporting of the “whole truth?” Wasn’t it responsible for challenging what seemed to some to have been specious reasoning?

Now in Iraq, the U.S. initiated a war with a country that had not attacked us, based on a preemptive policy designed to thwart possible future attacks by those countries who don’t like us. Sounds a little bit like that movie, “Minority Report,” starring Tom Cruise, doesn’t it? Remember? Tom Cruise belonged to a futuristic police department that apprehended “potential criminals,” relying on crimes “about to happen” predicted by psychics lying in a pool of water.

And what about the people who did attack us? Al-Qaeda. Doesn’t it seem strange to some that its leader, Osama Bin Laden, has not yet been captured after all these years post 9-11? Is it possible that 9-11 was the excuse to attack Iraq? That the American people were manipulated out of their sense of patriotism and love of country, to too easily buy into attacking anybody that didn’t like us?

Remember the “surface” excuse of the Administration? WMD – weapons of mass destruction. That was false. Iraq didn’t have them. There was sufficient evidence to show that Iraq viewed Al Qaeda with disdain; and that it was an enemy of Iran. What became the rhetoric and justification of the Administration was based on faulty evidence and on patriotic appeals. Yet the barrage by the Administration, using WMD, patriotism, love and survival of country as the reasons for going to war in Iraq worked. Though now without the WMD excuse, the patriotism factor works less well.

And the real reason for going to Iraq? Oil? An end to “nuisance” governments who don’t like us? A vision of American dominance in the Middle East? If any of those are true, why wasn’t any of that communicated to the American people? One other excuse given was to free people – to establish democracies in non-democratic countries. But was that the truth? If so, why didn’t we overthrow the Sudanese government that has been committing or allowing genocide for years?

So here, beyond the “truth” having versions, there have also been lies. And when there are lies, or when there are “versions” of the truth, we clearly aren’t getting the truth – the whole truth and nothing but the truth – whether the communication emanates from our government, or through the media relaying external facts and events, but at times underreporting the motives and truth behind events.

Somehow, we’ve been subject to an obfuscation of the truth based on appeals to our patriotism and the survival of our democracy. This Administration has been masterful at this kind of manipulation. What about the media? Has any “underreporting” and a meek willingness, for too long a time, to challenge the Administration about the truth, reflected its failure to its Fourth Estate responsibilities? When did the media vigorously challenge the probable overarching cause of the war – a new policy based on the right of preemption?

In a democracy, the people are entitled to more. How else can intelligent decisions be made, especially when it comes time to pulling the switches in the voting booth?

Continue to part two