The Watchdog Dilemma
Originally Published on LinkedIn, August 2023, but maybe more relevant today!
After watching the recent Presidential debate and the ensuing “discussions” about the role of the media, I thought back to an article I published on LinkedIn last August. The debate raging today is very personal to me, probably for all of us in Law Enforcement, because the rest of the country is getting a taste of what we have been experiencing for over a decade. It is no fun to be the MSM punching bag. But, as I wrote about last week, I recommend: Don't Make It Personal
Most of what I write is directed towards Law Enforcement, but this topic is germane to all of us.
Who Will Watch the Watchman?
I'm clearly going to establish myself as a Gen Xer with this, but sometimes cartoons tell stories in a way that nothing else can. I grew up on Warner Bros. Looney Tunes cartoons. I am proud of it. In fact, some of the best allegorical tales ever written are cartoons. This holds true today, but unfortunately, crudeness and rudeness have diminished the potential to convey life lessons by how modern cartoons are written and presented. Yes, get off my lawn and take some of your cartoons with you! I digress.
Yes, get off my lawn and take some of your cartoons with you!
The age-old question of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" (Who Will Watch the Watchman/Who will Guard the Guards Themselves?) encapsulates a dilemma in media and its role as a watchdog over law enforcement in America. The media can play a vital in holding those in power accountable and ensuring transparency; this includes those in law enforcement and other public positions of authority and influence. However, this phrase raises a critical concern: Who, in turn, guards the media, particularly in their vigilance over law enforcement?
It's not a problem, until it's a problem. Then, it's a problem.
After all, the media has more influence over the public's perception of law enforcement than the police do. They also have different rules and are not bound by the rules of evidence in criminal proceedings in the same ways. Despite what we might think when a story impacts us personally, most journalists are well-intentioned and do good work. I believe this in the same way that there are very few "bad apples" in law enforcement.
A paradox lies in the need for an external check on the media's power and influence to guarantee that they do not succumb to bias, sensationalism, or other potential pitfalls that can compromise their role as impartial watchdogs. Striking the right balance between media freedom and accountability is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy and ensuring that the custodians remain true to their mission.
So, I'll ask again: Who is responsible for ensuring accountability and integrity in the media? Society has spoken loud and clear when it comes to policing. They want body cameras. Why? Because they demand accountability. So why don't we demand the same of other critically essential roles? It is not just the cameras but also the processes that ensure fairness and accuracy.
The curious and somewhat comical dynamic between the cartoon characters Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog embodies the age-old question, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes," in an exciting way. Ralph and Sam are not adversaries outside their professional roles but share a cordial friendship. I mean, why wouldn't they? Wolves and dogs share 99% of the same DNA! They chat, have lunch together, and even genuinely enjoy each other's company.
However, a transformation occurs as the clock strikes, and they punch in for their jobs. They become fierce adversaries, working diligently to outwit and outsmart one another, with Ralph scheming to snatch a sheep and Sam fervently guarding the flock. It's a whimsical portrayal of how even the most seemingly harmonious relationships can take a dramatic twist when roles and responsibilities come into play, leaving us to wonder who, in this scenario, is indeed guarding the guards themselves. In this case, at least, it appears Sam is trustworthy because Ralph is foiled at every turn.
So, let's take this analogy a step further and move away from the media and into the realm of government watchdogs, for lack of a better term. Bob Scales has written extensively on this subject, and he raises legitimate concerns.
The difficulty of oversight and accountability extends to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when it acts as a watchdog over state and municipal law enforcement agencies. The DOJ has a role in investigating and addressing potential misconduct and civil rights violations within these agencies. However, the question arises: who becomes the watchdog of the DOJ itself? Ensuring that the DOJ operates with integrity and impartiality is paramount, as it wields significant power and influence in law enforcement. This dilemma underscores the need for robust oversight mechanisms, such as congressional committees, inspector generals, and independent oversight bodies, to scrutinize the actions and decisions of the DOJ, thereby upholding the principles of transparency, accountability, and “justice” within the justice system.
This is not the first time I have been concerned about the issue of trust and transparency. I've been on the wrong end of a sensationalized headline or two. I wrote about it in 2014 when I penned an OpEd for our local newspapers.
LPD Chief: The Wrong Picture Painted in Art Debate
In this piece, I wrote about the need for journalists to tell the whole story, not just the part that interests them or the part that drives "clicks," which, in turn, drives revenue. This is the core issue when it comes to the media. Who benefits from the truth, and who benefits from the story? This issue can be applied to any domain, whether the police, the media, the DOJ, or any other institution that wields power and influence over the people.
While it may have been ten years ago that I raised this question publicly, the problem or dilemma goes back much further. So far, even Plato has written about it.
... the community suffers nothing very terrible if its cobblers are bad and become degenerate and pretentious; but if the Guardians of its laws and constitution, who alone have the opportunity to bring it good government and prosperity, become a mere sham, then clearly it is completely ruined.
Police officers hold a unique position in society, tasked with maintaining law and order, protecting citizens, and upholding justice. Their authority extends to the ability to detain and arrest individuals, a power that can significantly impact a person's life and freedom. To ensure that this authority is wielded responsibly, candidates seeking to become police officers undergo rigorous screening processes:
Polygraph Examinations: Applicants are often subjected to polygraph examinations to detect any deceit or hidden issues in their past.
Written Aptitude Tests: These tests assess an individual's cognitive abilities, problem-solving skills, and ethical reasoning.
Psychological Testing: Comprehensive psychological evaluations help identify candidates' emotional stability and suitability for the high-stress environment of law enforcement.
Background Investigations: Extensive background checks delve into a candidate's history, including criminal records and past behavior, to uncover potential character flaws or biases.
These stringent screening measures ensure that those entrusted with the power to enforce the law do so fairly, justly, and without prejudice. Despite this rigorous process, sometimes it is not enough.
On the other hand, journalists wield different powers to shape public opinion, influence policy decisions, and hold institutions accountable through their reporting. While this influence is undeniable, the processes of becoming a journalist do not typically involve the same level of scrutiny as those for police officers. Journalism is characterized by principles such as freedom of the press and the protection of sources, which are essential for a vibrant democracy. However, these principles also mean journalism operates with a degree of self-regulation.
How do I know this? Simple, I asked several journalists what type of background screening they submitted themselves to when seeking job opportunities. The primary trait editors and papers seek is the ability to write well and tell a compelling story. No polygraph examinations were performed to pressure check character and integrity, no background investigations were performed to verify sources, methods, and accuracy of details reported, and no psychological evaluations were performed to understand if they had a baseline moral compass. We just have to trust them.
“Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees. Both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.”
—Henry Clay
But there is A Big Problem
We, as a country, don't trust the media. Only 7% of Americans report having a great deal of trust in the media; more concerning, 38% have no trust in newspapers, TV, and radio.
Looking at U.S. confidence in Major Institutions, we see an interesting dichotomy. In 2022, 45% of Americans reported a great deal/quite a lot of trust in the police, but only 16% in newspapers and 11% in television news. We won't even mention Congress. Another interesting data point is that the criminal justice system, in which the police operate, only holds a 14% rate of high trust.
This illustrates that we may be looking in the wrong place if we want to restore higher levels of trust across all major public institutions, including the police, media, and the criminal justice system. The Watchdog may need a little watchdog themselves. Therein lies the dilemma. What is the incentive of the media to turn the lens upon themselves?
The Paradox of Trust
The paradox lies in the apparent contradiction between the extensive scrutiny applied to police officers and the relatively limited scrutiny of individuals who can profoundly sway public opinion. Trust in journalism relies heavily on journalistic ethics, professional standards, and the credibility of news organizations. While many journalists adhere to these principles diligently, there are cases of misinformation, bias, or ethical breaches that can undermine public trust in the profession as a whole. But, for the public to be aware of these cases, it requires someone from within to identify and acknowledge journalistic integrity breaches. The police have Internal Affairs and tremendous amounts of oversight. What do journalists have?
The police have Internal Affairs and tremendous amounts of oversight. What do journalists have?
The nature of these two professions is fundamentally different. Police officers operate within a structured hierarchy and are accountable to specific laws and regulations, including internal processes, civilian oversight, and civil and criminal courts. In contrast, journalism thrives on diversity of thought, independence, and the protection of free speech. Overregulation of journalism could risk stifling these crucial aspects.
A wise peer of mine once gave me some sage advice. It was a variation of the Mark Twain quote. It is an underlying sentiment I've often heard discussed with law enforcement leaders. "Don't do or say anything that will draw unwanted attention."
Never pick fights with people who own printing presses and buy ink in 55-gallon drums.
Now that the apple cart has been upended by the emergence of digital and social media, it may be time to consider new ways to ensure accountability. As I pointed out in my OpEd years ago, it is becoming harder to distinguish between journalists and keyboard warriors. Both tell stories, but only one is trained in the ethics of journalism. The public does not necessarily know the difference.
The paradox of trust between police officers and journalists is complex. It is a nuanced relationship between power, accountability, and the public's faith in institutions. While police officers are subjected to rigorous scrutiny due to their authority and capacity to impact individual freedoms, journalists operate under the principles of a free press, safeguarding their independence.
To navigate this paradox, the public must remain discerning consumers of information, holding both professions accountable while respecting their essential roles in a free and democratic society. In the end, trust must be earned through transparency, integrity, and a commitment to each profession's principles.
This goes for all institutions, including the DOJ. I'm all in favor of oversight, but there are limits to checks and balances, regardless of profession or endeavor. At some point, we have to trust someone to do the right thing, and as far as America goes, the Police are still at the top of the list.