The Fifth Estate

A growing problem in America is the polarization of the press — as is especially evident in the current election campaign.

The press has long held a cherished role in our democracy: ideally, journalists are the ultimate truth tellers who hold politicians accountable. The press, in conjunction with the separate branches of the government and the judiciary, acts as yet another vital check and balance on political power.

Journalists have an invaluable calling: to stand above the political fray in order to protect the interests of the people; to serve as the bold and courageous whistleblowers of corruption and deceit.

There is an increasing tendency, however, among news people to forsake this noble role as the "Fourth Estate," or the guardians of public virtue. Instead they become wings of a specific party or political campaign. Thus, the press is becoming less of a watchdog for politics and more of a direct political partisan.

Hence, if news organizations become political actors, we need a "Fifth Estate" — that is, another group of writers and thinkers who police the press. Internet news has gained tremendous power and influence in recent years precisely because Americans distrust many television and print press outlets.

With lightning speed, the incessant bloggers on the Internet call attention to distortions in the mainstream press. Furthermore, there is a body of original information available on the Internet that does not appear elsewhere. In short, the New Media is becoming the "Fifth Estate."

A recent example is the CNN Republican debate held in Nevada. Retired army Brigadier General Keith Kerr, who asked the candidates a question about gays in the military, was exposed by Politico.com as an individual with links to Senator Clinton's campaign. It then was revealed on the Internet that many of the other questions asked to Republican candidates came from liberal or Democratic voters. Was the CNN debate therefore deliberately crafted to embarrass Republican candidates rather than to present an honest and straightforward forum for their views? How closely was CNN working with the Clinton campaign?

The same questions can be raised about CNN's lopsided report regarding Barack Obama's Muslim background. In January 2007, Insight on the News, an online conservative news site of which I am the editor, reported that Mrs. Clinton's camp had private investigators conduct "opposition research" into Mr. Obama's alleged Muslim background during his childhood years in Indonesia, where he attended — in Mr. Obama's words — a "predominantly Muslim school."

We reported that Mrs. Clintons's camp would use the Muslim angle during the campaign, in an attempt to discredit Mr. Obama. CNN quickly sent a reporter to Indonesia and declared that Mr. Obama was raised in a "secular" school. Moreover, CNN announced they had "debunked" Insight's story.

But what had the network actually done? They did not examine whether Mrs. Clinton used private investigators nor whether she conducted opposition research. CNN spun the tale according to an agenda — it did not conduct an inquiry based on all the information presented in the Insight report.

The same pattern was repeated by a New York Times reporter, David Kirkpatrick, who wrote an article about Insight that was full of egregious factual errors and distortions, such as to ponder whether Insight actually exists. Mr. Kirkpatrick expended much energy in attacking a fellow news outlet but did not bother to examine the role of Mrs. Clinton's campaign in conducting "opposition research."

Last week, at a key juncture when Mr. Obama's fortunes were beginning to rise and was a threat to Senator Clinton for the Democratic Party's nomination, the Washington Post featured a front page news story on the "rumors" regarding Mr. Obama's Muslim background — that he is secretly a Muslim and that he was educated in Indonesia in a madrassa.

According to Politico.com, the Post's article was so alarming, even several of the newspaper's editors dissented. They were concerned that the article might be circulating the Obama rumors without verifying the truth.

The Post was attacked for presenting information that could harm Mr. Obama without a real cause. The assistant managing editor, Bill Hamilton, later apologized for the story being "misunderstood" and for his editing.

But why, after all, had the article suddenly been published? Why did the Washington Post not conduct an investigation into the original source of the rumors? Did Mrs. Clinton's camp plant the story? Why has the Post not yet examined Mrs. Clinton's use of private investigators to derail Mr. Obama?

Such incomplete reports continue to fuel the public's distrust of the mainstream press. In reaction to perceived liberal bias in the press, there has been an explosion of equally blatant conservative news organs that also take an often strong partisan slant: one polarization begets another.

Voters are increasingly turning to the New Media for relief. But there is no relief in sight. To compound the tug of war among candidates, the electorate must now decipher the war among news organizations. And the Internet too has become a source and battleground of press warfare.

So, who indeed watches the watchmen? And, in the long run, how can we prevent our revered American democracy from sliding into demagoguery and factionalism?

If we want to safeguard our republic from decay, we must return to its first principles: the press must report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And journalists must fiercely protect their independence and objectivity regardless of the fickle fortunes of specific parties or candidates.

Mr. Kuhner is the editor of Insight on the News.