Interesting things happen around the National Zero virtual office, and they come full circle some days.  Today was one of those days.  This morning, Spartan virtually sauntered into my virtual corner office in the virtual National Zero office tower in Brooklyn, puts his feet up on my desk–a habit I find SO annoying because lord knows where those flip flops have been!–and asks a question about journalistic ethics:  “Would it be fair to say John Solomon is criminally implicated if he sourced articles from classified documents?”

He had picked up the story on Solomon using classified information in his stories, and it started a conversation we frequently have on things we’re writing to make sure neither of us is going over a journalistic or ethical line.  (Because believe it or not, National Zero holds itself to higher professional, moral and ethical standards than Fox News, those motherfuckers.  NatZero:  More swearing.  Less sexual harassment.) The questions I had came from confusion about Solomon’s role:  was he acting as an advisor or a journalist?  When did he have access to the classified information and when did he report it?  Was he “read into” the info, or was the info declassified?  The roles Solomon played determined whether criminal charges would apply.  (Ultimately, it appears Solomon can make a reasonable legal claim that he understood the information had been declassified by the President-at-the-time when he received it and that he received it in his capacity as a journalist, making it plausibly coverable by press shield laws.)

The bigger part of that conversation came back in a later story today:  the release of text messages, emails and testimony by Fox personalities and executives in which they acknowledge their on-air statements and the statements of their guests regarding Dominion Voting Systems were false.

So how would a journalist be an advisor to someone they’re supposedly reporting on?  And why would a journalist go on-air with information they know to be false, and enthusiastically promote the views of guests whose they know are lying?

Allow a moment of nerdy administration:  the Latin word qua means, generally, “in the role of,” “with respect to its position as,” or “in its capacity as.”  In philosophy and ethics, the word is used to differentiate roles of a person or object:  a woman qua mother or qua doctor, or a square qua shape or qua community feature.  This word will come in handy, particularly to prevent my fingers from typing “in the capacity he was serving as” repeatedly.

So did John Solomon serving in the role of an advisor to the President have access to classified information that Solomon qua journalist used as the basis of the story.  Was that illegal?  Likely no, because Solomon reasonably believed the documents had been declassified by Trump.  And even had Solomon qua journalist used actual classified information in a story, it would not have been illegal because Solomon qua advisor didn’t facilitate the release of the information and Solomon qua journalist allegedly received it from an unidentified third party.  The fact that he believed Trump declassified the documents erases any classified secrets laws, and the fact he received them from a third party triggers press shield laws intentionally or unintentionally protecting Solomon from charges of theft of classified information.  (The whole issue of journalists qua citizens moral responsibility to protect some national security secrets–think Manhattan Project–is a different matter.)

Fast forward a few hours:  Fox hosts have a chat string discussing how fraudulent claims against “dominion” are, while they’re still hyping them on their shows. Fox executive said under oath they don’t believe people like Sidney Powell.  Then they talk about a reporter who dares to fact-check Trump.  At what point do journalists qua citizens have a responsibility to stop spreading lies to others, namely their viewers?  When do “news stations” qua broadcasters differentiate between journalists qua entertainers versus qua propagandists, and when must those journalists get taken off the air because “news stations” qua citizens (per Citizens United) have responsibilities to the public?

The difference between a propagandist and a journalist isn’t their familiarity with the subject; you can be friends with someone you report on.  The difference is objectivity.  A propagandist can never be objective; with lies, they always pitch the angle.  And someone–like Hannity–who acts as a de facto advisor to the President cannot be a partisan advisor one second and then be an objective journalist the next.  There can and must be a wall between an advisor and a journalist; you cannot simultaneously be both.  You cannot simultaneously be Hannity qua Trump advisor and Hannity qua objective journalist.  It simply isn’t possible; one pollutes the other.  One promotes the successes and hides the failures of the other.  That’s what Hannity and Fox do.

The other issue comes from journalists as professionals.  Real journalists have ethics and standards.  (Oh, shit, are National Zero “real journalists”???  Do we have to unionize or something?) Fox not only intentionally misleads people, it does so constantly about political issues they want to influence.  Fox drives the car, not Republicans, and Fox pollutes the pond, likely intentionally, to manipulate people into believing all journalists are liars like they are.  They lie to their viewers’ faces, and they get away with it because Fox executives have no morals or responsibilities qua human beings.