and finally...


Playing politics, playground style


Where are the grown-ups? asks Chris Proctor Recently, we were treated to a gala


Y


ou’re sitting quietly at your desk when Authority storms towards you in its usual state of


deranged hysteria. “Get yourself down to St Wilfred’s


Primary School right away! There’s an argument going on in the playground between a boy called Jack (4¼) and girl named Bembe (4½). “I want a full account. I want absolute accuracy. I want tight, informed copy. I want responsible, objective and serious reporting. Go!” Expenses being what they are, you get to the school as quickly as you can by foot and bus. The tip-off was accurate. The antagonists, muddy- faced and grubby-kneed, stand each side of a puddle, wailing. A quick word of introduction, a flicked-open pad, a moment to borrow a pencil and you’re on the case. “He says I pulled tongues at him and


I never. He said I was a snot gobbler.” “I never did! She started it. She said


I’d wet my pants.” “Did not!” “Did” “Liar!” “Bum’s on fire!” You sigh. It’s not going to be easy to report this in a mature way. This must be one of the worst jobs around. Well, then! You’ve obviously never been called upon to cover the proceedings of the US’s House Oversight and Reform Committee (HOC). Compared with the HOC, the exchanges of the primary school pair are the very models of the Socratic method.


performance by the Overseers. The first character on stage was a hectoring aggressive man, reminiscent of Desperate Dan in appearance, stained with all manner of sordid allegations about unwanted sexual advances. The facts are too grubby for esteemed members of the NUJ, but the allegations are that this fellow carefully focused his vision in a different direction as a team doctor and assaulted several thousand student wrestlers. He is the sort of man who interrupts opponents, smears rivals, denies climate change, mocks adversaries and opposes the Violence Against Women Act. “Is this the defendant?” you ask


yourself. No. This is Jim Jordan. He’s one of the judges. Giving evidence is a former chum of the US president, who in his opening remarks concedes: “I have lied, but I am not a liar.” This is a splendid semantic but a rather poor introduction to a tribunal. Having established his credentials,


the chum, who we will call Michael Cohen, that being his name, gets down to business. Mr Trump, he asserts, told him to lie before he (Cohen) lied to Congress and Trump also lied about the Trump Moscow negotiations. Trump retaliates. He says that Cohen


was disbarred by the State Supreme Court for lying. He’s lying to reduce the time he’ll have to spend in prison. Also, Cohen said that he didn’t want to work at the White House, which the president says is a lie as everyone knows. Supporting the allegation by Cohen


that the president had been lying about money being passed to young ladies who might have been attracted to Mr Trump’s charm or perhaps his wallet, one Jim Sciutto enters stage left bearing a copy of a cheque given by Trump to Cohen which he says was ‘hush money’. We breathe a sign of relief at Mr


26 | theJournalist


“ ”


Sciutto’s appearance, as he is a first-class human being: to wit, a journalist. He’s an anchor at CNN. Clearly he has no vested interest. Except that he has a book – The Shadow War – coming out in May. The bigger this story gets, the larger his bank account grows. And, every time you get a comment, you get a plug for his book. Meanwhile, Dunyasha Yetts, one of the wrestlers assaulted while Judge Jordan wasn’t looking, says that he spoke to Jim about the sexual abuse. Jim denies this. Mr Yetts has no option other than to reveal his belief that Jim is ‘a liar’. By now, even the most principled


The first character on stage was a hectoring, aggressive man, reminiscent of Desperate Dan


journalist is reaching for the bottle. Yes, you are anxious to comply with the union’s Code of Conduct. But this charges you to ‘correct harmful inaccuracies’; and ‘differentiate between fact and opinion’. It would take Solomon top form to even make a start. At this point, you realise the entire HOC exercise has become existential. You can either think about types of reality which lie beyond conscious experience – or give up and request a transfer from news to the primary school desk, where discussion is more balanced and mature.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28