Legerdemain, anti-news, and neckties

By Dan Altuz (Own work)
[CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
An old magician's trick -- "look closely, nothing up my sleeve" -- threatens to alter our perception of what constitutes real news. Unless we wise up, and fast.

In stage parlance, the word was legerdemain. Derived from a French expression for "sleight of hand," it describes a magic trick, or some other deceit. Screenwriters and journalists don't use the word much anymore. 

But, in an era of false news, dusting it off would be a fine idea.

Because we're looking at a year or more of childish sniping and Tweets whose true purpose is to distract editors and too-lean reporting staffs from digging at harder stories. Legerdemain isn't limited to the next occupants of the White House. In some cases, PR people have performed their own version of "here's an oversized check to charity" to obscure the less-than-charitable dealings of their clients.

And it works, much of the time. 

It works because the U.S. electorate (or a subset thereof) chose a reality TV version of a CEO as their leader. It works because the same electorate responded like dogs to a bone whenever someone with a microphone said "Benghazi" or "emails." And it works when the phrase "fake news" is quickly co-opted to infer fabrications from any political pundit.

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal's editor said it wouldn't label the President-elect's falsehoods or misleading claims as "lies." Mr. Baker is essentially telling his readers: "You decide." Which gave rise to a sad assortment of neckties on Fox News. That recipe worked out well, didn't it?

But it stops here. And now.

We must think of legerdemain in today's terms. It's no longer "fake news." It's no longer a Trumpish bellow across Twitter. We need to view it as anti-news: fable-telling whose sole intent is to mislead viewers and readers from facts and authentic news.

So it's up to us -- you and I -- to draw the line. This far, and no farther. No anti-news. No more legerdemain. Challenge falsehoods. Be vigilant for the inaccurate tweet that distracts us from the author's true intentions.

And pay close attention to the man or woman behind the curtain.


Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the New York (Times) Athletic Club

Image
The New York Times dropped the axe on its legendary sports department in early July. Sports reporting we read in the Times henceforth will originate with The Athletic, a younger (and perhaps more agile) sportswriting website purchased by the NYT Corp.  You'll find a good assessment of the move here .  As a Times subscriber, I have automatic access to any sports reporting it produces. I won't call it "free access," however, because my ever-increasing monthly rate for a three-day Times subscription surely will include a tithe to cover the Athletic.  But ditching the Times ' sports desk and dispersing its fine sports journalists and photographers to other NYT jobs? That's a loss. Here's why: Conflict of interest: The Athletic allows its staff to report on sports gambling, while some are paid contractors of the sportsbook companies. Is there a Pete Rose-style conflict here? I'd expect so. The Times allowed no double-dipping within its sports staff. The s
Read more

Your hand's already in my pocket

Image
I use an ad blocker, and probably you do, too. Every day, even on websites where I pay a monthly subscription fee, I see a pop-up that say: "We Notice You Are Using an Ad Blocker." And they ask me to turn it off. I don't. I'm already paying for that news website's reporting. Their hands are already in my pocket. And, truth is, I don't mind digital ads that are somewhat relevant to my tastes. Show me an ad for a guitar deal or Ford car parts, and I'll probably read it. Screen shot, unnamed Gannett publication, Sept. 2018 But I don't care about Patrick Swayze's secret son. Or what forgotten 1970s actress Loni Anderson looks like today. (I was more of a Howard Hesseman /Dr. Johnny Fever fan, anyway.) When newspapers relied on print ad revenue, I'd glance at those ads -- and sometimes, I'd bite -- because those ads were for local or regional merchants. They wanted to build a relationship with me.  They didn't try
Read more

Readers get the (drive) shaft in motorsports coverage

Image
In mid-August, the U.S.'s premier auto racing sport will compete at a road racing course in Watkins Glen, NY. NASCAR's brutish Cup series cars will race in this rural community Aug. 20.  May 2023, Charlotte Motor Speedway. (c) DKassnoff, 2023. But, don't expect  The New York Times  to cover NASCAR before then. The newspaper's sports section -- now outsourced to The Athletic, its sportsbook subsidiary -- hasn't covered NASCAR since July 2. That's when NASCAR's drivers competed on the rain-soaked streets of Chicago. The Times provided no coverage of their July 30 race in Richmond, VA, or any NASCAR race since early July. The Times  has focused its motorsports coverage on Formula 1 racing. These are the expensive, open-wheeled, high performance racing teams once called Grand Prix. This class of racing is controlled by another media company: John Malone's Liberty Media, which purchased Formula 1 in 2017 and returned it to profitability. Visit the Times '
Read more