In a provocative post on his blog, PressThink, media theorist Jay Rosen asks a troubling question about the recent NY Times investigative report on the Tea Party movement. He zeroes in on one sentence: "It is a sprawling rebellion, but running through it is a narrative of impending tyranny." And then he asks, as one might if one were not a journalist, hey, uh, is that true? About our country and tyranny, that is?

Rosen, professor of journalism at NYU, while praising the meticulously reported story by David Barstow, wonders about offering, without context or challenge, such a highly charged assessment. If it is accurate, he argues, the story should say so. And if not, why is the New York Times mute? "If tyranny was pending in the U.S. that would seem to be a story," says Rosen.

We're not talking theoretical stuff here. People have been known to believe patently counterfactual statements — things that make them willing to do extreme things. It seems to Rosen — and to me — that what we should ask of journalism is not a fake purity that refuses to choose a side, but a willingness to bring the facts to the table, even at the risk of appearing to lose "objectivity." Says Rosen:

In a word, the Times editors and Barstow know this narrative is nuts, but something stops them from saying so. And whatever that thing is, it’s not the reluctance to voice an opinion in the news columns, but a reluctance to report a fact in the news columns, the fact that the “narrative of impending tyranny” is ungrounded in any observable reality, even though the sense of grievance within the Tea Party movement is truly felt and politically consequential.

My claim: We have come upon something interfering with political journalism’s “sense of reality” as the philosopher Isaiah Berlin called it (see section 5.1) And I think I have a term for the confusing factor: a quest for innocence in reportage and dispute description. Innocence, meaning a determination not to be implicated, enlisted, or seen by the public as involved. That’s what created the pattern I’ve called “regression to a phony mean.” That’s what motivated the rise of he said, she said reporting.
— Jay Rosen, PressThink

If you're a regular reader, you pretty much know where I stand on this — with David Weinberger, who argues that transparency is the new objectivity. We cannot not communicate, as Colin Cherry used to say. And we are humans, hardwired by evolution to fit facts into patterns and make meaning. We can't help it, that's who we are. Being a "journalist" shouldn't mean checking your meaning-maker at the door. If you tell us where you're coming from and provide the evidence for your assessment, we're much more likely to trust you than a voice from nowhere cloaked in illusory objectivity.

If the U.S. is sliding toward tyranny, uh, please say so. And if it is not, please do us the service of calling it like it is.

Full disclosure: I know Jay from grad school, and I think he's pretty smart about this stuff.