ABOVE THE
FOLD
No member of society has the right to
teach any doctrine contrary to what society holds to be true.
-- Samuel Johnson
SCENE: The offices of a great metropolitan
newspaper.
A MANAGING EDITOR, a CITY EDITOR, and a
young REPORTER are discussing the top story of the day.
MANAGING EDITOR: Okay,
whadda we got?
REPORTER: Some guy shot another guy near the
Empire State Building,
and then two cops shot the killer and some bystanders.
CITY EDITOR: How many
bystanders?
REPORTER: Nine.
MANAGING EDITOR: Whoa whoa
whoa! The cops do not shot
bystanders. Ever.
REPORTER: Well it’s
pretty clear that they did.
MANAGING EDITOR: Well it’s
pretty clear that we can’t say that.
REPORTER: But it’s a
verifiable fact.
MANAGING EDITOR: You don’t
understand. When I say,
“We cannot say that,” I mean we cannot say that. When I say “The cops do not shoot
bystanders,” I am not talking about a verifiable fact, I am talking about a
sentence in the newspaper. Subject verb
object. If “shoots” is the verb and “bystanders”
is the object, then there is no way that the word “cops” can ever be the
subject. It’s journalistically
incorrect.
REPORTER: But it’s
the truth!
MANAGING EDITOR: Isn’t that
what I just said?
CITY EDITOR: Look--even
if it is true--and that’s a big if--then we have to tell that truth in a way that
not only reflects the facts, but grammatically reinforces the cultural values behind
the facts.
REPORTER: You mean
like, the police are here to protect us, and therefore they can do no wrong?
MANAGING EDITOR: Exactly.
CITY EDITOR: Except
that we can’t say that out loud.
MANAGING EDITOR: We have to
imply it.
CITY EDITOR:
Unless--wait--can’t we fall back on the Reagan Rule?
MANAGING EDITOR: No--we
don’t have a press release yet, so we can’t reprint it as if it’s an actual
piece of reporting.
CITY EDITOR: Crap. So we have to use cop-speak.
MANAGING EDITOR: I’m afraid
so.
REPORTER: Cop-speak?
CITY EDITOR: The
passive tense. The cops don’t hurt
people; people get hurt. The cops don’t
shoot bystanders; bystanders are caught in the line of fire.
REPORTER: But that
makes it the bystander’s fault.
MANAGING EDITOR: Exactly.
CITY EDITOR: Because it
can’t be the cops’ fault.
MANAGING EDITOR: Ever.
CITY EDITOR: That kind
of shit only happens in Russia.
MANAGING EDITOR: Or Mexico.
CITY EDITOR: Or China.
MANAGING EDITOR: Not here.
CITY EDITOR: Not ever.
MANAGING EDITOR: Cops
never, ever shoot, or kill. They open
fire. Unless they’re provoked, in which case
they return fire, or they answer fire.
REPORTER: Making it
the shooter’s fault.
CITY EDITOR: Correct. And even when they kill the shooter--what’s
this guy’s name?
REPORTER: Johnson.
CITY EDITOR: Johnson--even
when they kill Johnson, we either say “Johnson was killed” or “police shoot
suspect.”
REPORTER: Why can’t
we say “Police shoot Johnson?”
MANAGING EDITOR: Because
that personalizes the act of shooting.
We need to make it as nebulous as possible so that people don’t get a picture
in their head of some overweight guy in blue sticking a gun in somebody’s face and
pulling the trigger.
CITY EDITOR: So what we
have to do here grammatically is, we have to make this shooting look like a
one-time only event that was caused by the victims, so that future innocent
bystanders are reassured that it can never happen again.
REPORTER: And
meanwhile, what, the police who fired the bullets aren’t even part of the
process?
CITY EDITOR: [a
shrug] Welcome to New York.
REPORTER: More like
“Welcome to Bloomberg’s police state.”
CITY EDITOR: Isn’t that
what I just said?
MANAGING EDITOR: Work with
us here, okay?
REPORTER: Okay. Okay. Okay;
so . . . how about something like, uh, “Police shoot suspect, nine others
wounded?”
MANAGING EDITOR: No no
no--not wounded--hurt. Nine others
hurt. “Wounded” implies that somebody
did the wounding. “Hurt” implies that
it was an accident--they could have fallen down, they could have twisted
their ankle.
CITY EDITOR: Even
better--how’s this?--even better, let’s spend the first paragraph painting a
scene of chaos.
MANAGING EDITOR: I love it.
CITY EDITOR: Chaos
means it’s nobody’s fault. Chaos means,
for all we know, the bystanders who were wounded--
MANAGING EDITOR: Hurt.
CITY EDITOR: --hurt ran
right into the path of bullets which were aimed at the suspect.
REPORTER: So “Police
Shoot Suspect, Nine Others Hurt in Chaos.”
CITY EDITOR: Perfect. And then at some point in the first three
paragraphs you can say that people were wounded, but make sure there’s some doubt
about who they were wounded by.
MANAGING EDITOR: No--don’t
mention people at all--mention the bullets.
And then admit the possibility that some of those bullets were fired by
the police.
CITY EDITOR: No--not
fired by the police--don’t mention the police as people, mention them as
adjectives. Mention the bystanders
as people--so it’s like, ah, “they were wounded, possibly by police bullets,”
something like that.
MANAGING EDITOR: And we
have to say how fast it was happening too.
Something like “the nanosecond speed at which a shootout plays out.”
REPORTER: Huh?
MANAGING EDITOR: Is that
not clear?
REPORTER: No human
being can act in nanoseconds.
MANAGING EDITOR: Of course
not, but the point is not to be realistic, the point is that it happens so fast
you can’t do anything about it. That’s
all we’re saying--that in cases like this, the police are confronted by a
series of split-second choices.
REPORTER: [sarcastically]
Split-nanosecond choices?
MANAGING EDITOR: Don’t be
ridiculous.
CITY EDITOR: What else
can’t we say?
MANAGING EDITOR: I’m a
little concerned about the phrase “bystander shooting.” Can we even put the words “bystander” and
“shooting” next to each other?
CITY EDITOR: We
shouldn’t even use the word shooting at all.
MANAGING EDITOR: Exactly. Call it an incident. Call it an encounter, or an event--but do NOT
call it a shooting.
REPORTER: [increasingly
more frustrated] So, what, “bystanders were injured?”
CITY EDITOR: No,
injured is too active, it implies that somebody injured them--
MANAGING EDITOR: Meaning
the cops--
CITY EDITOR: --and we
can’t even imply that, never mind actually say it in print.
REPORTER: “After
bystanders were embroiled in a shooting incident?”
MANAGING EDITOR: Too
complicated, even for us.
CITY EDITOR: And it
still mentions shooting.
REPORTER: How about
“bystanders hit by bullets?”
CITY EDITOR: Whose
bullets?
REPORTER: The cops’
bullets.
CITY EDITOR: Then we
can’t say it.
REPORTER: “Bystanders
hit by bullets that magically appeared out of nowhere?”
MANAGING EDITOR: Can we
take this seriously please?
REPORTER: I am
taking this seriously.
CITY EDITOR: How about
“Bystanders take fire?”
MANAGING EDITOR: No, that
could mean they all pulled out guns and opened up at each other.
CITY EDITOR: How about
“bystanders take bullets?”
MANAGING EDITOR: Yes! Perfect!
REPORTER:
“Perfect?” How is it perfect?
MANAGING EDITOR: Because it
makes it all their fault!
CITY EDITOR: It’s like
they chose to get shot!
REPORTER: [blowing up] And that’s
ridiculous! We’re giving our readers the
impression that a bunch of innocent people deliberately jumped in front of a
fusillade of bullets that nobody actually fired because we’re afraid to say
three simple words, one right after the other: “police” “shoot”
“bystanders.” Do you know what that is?
CITY EDITOR: It’s
American journalism.
REPORTER: It’s
self-censorship!
MANAGING EDITOR: Isn’t that
what he just said?
[BLACKOUT.]
