The best obtainable version of the truth

     Investigative journalism reached a pinnacle with the stories about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters written by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and published in The Washington Post on June 18, 1972.

     Over the course the next months the reporters revealed a tangled tale rife with political corruption, dirty ‘hush money’, blind ambition, protected sources, and their work resulted in the unraveling of the top echelon of the United States government.

     Through the hard work of investigative journalism, the ‘Watergate Caper’, as Walter Cronkite called it on the CBS Evening News, was etched into history and eventually led to the resignation of a sitting president, Richard Nixon.

     
     On the 40^th anniversary of that monumental publishing event, another Post writer, Leonard Downie Jr., penned an opinion piece about the current state of investigative journalism and how Watergate shaped its evolution. “Woodward and Bernstein’s techniques were hardly original," Downie wrote. "But, propagated by “All the President’s Men,” they became central to the ethos of investigative reporting: Become an expert on your subject. Knock on doors to talk to sources in person. Protect the confidentiality of sources when necessary. Never rely on a single source. Find documents. Follow the money. Pile one hard-won detail on top of another until a pattern becomes discernible.”

     After seven years of declining revenue, in an effort to maintain the integrity of their newspaper, this week The Graham family agreed to sell The Washington Post to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos.

     Most newspapers do not have the resources, money, or time that The Post has to spend on important investigative news. Yet they are sometimes able to get the job done. So, is it resources that really drive important stories? As a daily news reporter, the silent stories that remained in my files on the day I walked away still irritate my conscience.

     On that small scale, investigative reporters like The Patriot-News’s Sarah Ganim – who dogged the legal system for more than 18 months to bring the name Jerry Sandusky, a serial pedophile, to the forefront. If she had not gone to court, followed postponed hearing after hearing, and finally published the Grand Jury indictment, would Penn State have been able to bury the scandal? The answer is yes – because they had already done so for many years.

     Ganim won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism for her work.

     Last week Sandusky was denied a new trial after being convicted in June 2012 on 45 counts of sexually abusing 10 boys.

     Bernstein, in this April 24, 2012 interview, talks about the state of mainstream media today and the continued responsibility of investigative journalists. In discussing the shift in responsibility to stockholders, in a popular culture which values celebrity, Bernstein sees degradation of information and thereby society.

“Newspapers are not willing, increasingly, to devote those resources to that kind of reporting. … When you don’t have dominant journalistic institutions whose standards really prevail and influence the standards of other journalistic institutions … when you have a culture in which hard, complex truth is no longer the coin of the realm, or is devalued, … when we determine that Marla Maples is bigger news than Nelson Mandela … that is a triumph of idiot culture.”

     Maybe the pairing of the largest booksellers with one of the best newspapers published holds some hope for the future of investigative journalism.

If you can't say something nice ...

Taking college classes online has become an important part of getting a degree. A 2011 survey by Babson College revealed at that six million people, “nearly one-third of all students in higher education are taking at least one online course.”

That’s a lot of people. And a lot of money. But that’s not what I want to talk about today. What I am really concerned with is the quality of learning achieved through the online platform.

First, let me say I am biased because I believe in education. I believe a person who is able to think at a higher level has an obligation to expand their knowledge to its greatest possible potential. 

Why? Because not everyone thinks at the same level as everyone else. A simple example: Albert Einstein. What if he just decided to stick with the patent office job? He could have, and no one would have noticed. But he didn’t. He pushed himself and for that the world learned a new way to understand time and space. 

See what I mean? Not everyone could, but he did, and we all benefit.

Now, not everyone can be self-taught like Einstein. Still, some of us want to expand our knowledge to a greater degree. Skilled craftsmen along with institutions of higher education make this possible. Teachers, professors and skilled masters have the power to convey understanding and knowledge so an individual can become more than most would be on their own. University is where I would learn about logic, reasoning, how to use my mind to its greatest capacity and learn critical thinking.

OK, that’s the set up. Now here’s the rant: from my experience, online learning is a farce. One of the key skills you are supposed to learn and hone in college - critical thinking and the ability to thoughtfully debate a point - is completely missing from most of the online classes I have taken (and passed.)

One component of online learning is the message board. It is the place where ideas should be shared and discussed. In my psychology class the professor posts weekly questions and each student must post three responses during the week. Last week he asked, “Which do you believe is the most important sense? Do you believe in subliminal perception and/or extra sensory perception?  If someone came to you and said, I have ghosts in my house, what would you think?”

By midweek, the “discussion” devolved into a surreal chat session about why my classmates believe in ghosts. Not one shred of evidence was ever introduced, only statements like, “I do believe in ghosts. I have heard many stories of them. I used to work in a nursing home the night shift, and you could actually hear conversations but when you go to where you hear the voices nothing there and my patients were sound asleep,” and “If someone came to me and said, they have ghosts in their house, I would probably think that they do. I have experienced the presence of a ghost. I hear things, see things and find my jewelry in spots other than in my jewelry box. I have seen orbs in photos that I have taken.”

It went on like that for more than four days and the professor did not interject once. As a matter of fact, six weeks into the course and there was not one redirect, reinforcement or reprimand from him at all.

Now, I wouldn't be nearly as torqued as I am, except in the next “discussion” it started again. The question went to sleep disorders. It’s amazing how many people claim to have narcolepsy – it seems at least three of my classmates do. I was still a little disheartened by the previous week’s campfire ghost tales, so I (gently!) asked them to share some details about their diagnosis.

Meanwhile, when I pointed out to two of my fellow classmates that commercial websites in the business of sleep disorders might be biased and I would be skeptical of their information THAT is when the professor decided it was time to intervene.

My post:

Hi S…,Thank you for the interesting link to The Sleep Foundation website. One problem I have with using it as a source is found on its 'about us' page:"Funding Sources and Editorial IndependenceThe National Sleep Foundation furthers its mission by supporting public education, sleep-related research and advocacy. The NSF is supported by a number of sources, including individual donors, memberships, sales of educational materials, advertising, investment income and grants.”When advertising is listed as a funding source it makes me a bit skeptical of the content.
~reb

Here is the professor’s response – in the public discussion forum – directly to me personally:

“Hi (Reb),One of the processes we incorporate in this class is listing source material. As always whether we agree or disagree based on sponsoring organizations is a moot point. The goal here is not to pick apart a post so much as counter your answer with facts that support your viewpoint. Skepticism is truly a good thing, but we also need to be supportive of our classmates' use of source material.One way of supporting you (sic) colleagues here is to offer a diffrent (sic) viewpoint rather than criticze (sic) her/his source material.We can always find some other material to contradict another person's viewpoint. Or instead of laying out your skepticism, you could offer a different website in support of your colleague's post. This is a learning environment that requires personal insight and the use of diferent (sic) resources that can be better utilized through finding supporting data or finding data that doesn't support the post's viewpoint.We are all skeptics, its (sic) backing skepticism with facts which leads to a more proactive interaction. I do offer this as a suggestion to assist all of our interactions with our classmates.Professor …”

Ugh. 

So basically, it’s my job to find a way to make a ridiculous and unfounded point of view right? 

How about some ‘agreeance’ that my post was a good one, or are we only supposed to agree with the absolutely absurd and uninformed popular opinion? 

Ugh. 

In a traditional classroom, at least in my mind, this whole discussion would have been a very different one. Arrggghhh. 

Ugh.

Next time maybe I should just post that my ghosts have narcolepsy.