Ray Hernandez and Cargo Cult Journalism

by: BranfordBoy

Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 15:41:09 PM EDT

What's a cargo cult, you ask?

A cargo cult is a religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. The cults focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture through magic and religious rituals and practices. Cult members believe that the wealth was intended for them by their deities and ancestors. Cargo cults developed primarily in remote parts of New Guinea and other Melanesian and Micronesian societies in the southwest Pacific Ocean, beginning with the first significant arrivals of Westerners in the 19th century. Similar behaviors have, however, also appeared elsewhere in the world.

Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behaviour that they had observed of the military personnel operating them.

For Ray Hernandez and company the cargo they seek is the glory that was "Watergate," the portmanteau term for the epic achievement of investigative reporting that brought down Richard Nixon and that made reporters Woodward and Bernstein movie stars, Pulitzer winners, fabulously wealthy, and no doubt got them laid a lot.

Unfortunately, Ray Hernandez does not possess the advanced technology Woodward and Bernstein used to get their big scoop (i.e. time, hard work, a budget, sound editorial guidance, and a commitment to getting the story right).

So, the primitive tribespeople who now staff the Times and many other newsrooms try to recreate the glory days by constructing crude bamboo replicas of investigative journalism.

And when fabulously wealthy entities like the McMahon campaign show them a shiny object, they leap with joy and wonderment and slap it on the front page.

In a new piece posted on the Times' web site, occasioned by McMahon's latest attack ad, Hernandez exults over what he apparently sees as the impending demise of Blumenthal and the "cargo" it will bring him.

He stops just short of exposing his genitals so all can swoon over his impressive manhood.

He proudly links to his original hit piece, but never acknowledges that he was able to write it only because of the largesse of the McMahon campaign in feeding him the video. Video in which, he assiduously fails to inform us, Blumenthal accurately characterized his Vietnam era service before misstating it.

But in the primitive world of modern day journalism, a single flimsy stalk is sufficient to bring him the cargo he desires.

Hernandez's faux-macho posturing would be almost comical were it not appearing in the storied New York Times, which has obviously decided that editorial oversight is an unnecessary expense.

Republicans close to the McMahon campaign said the goal was to personally shake up Mr. Blumenthal, a once ubiquitous presence in Connecticut who has significantly curtailed his public appearances after The New York Times published an article in May describing how he had misrepresented his military service over the years.

(Emphasis added) Hernandez roars and politicians cower in abject fear. Gimme a break.

Hernandez uses the article as, essentially, another free ad for the McMahon campaign, which took a full-page ad in the Times over the weekend.

He dutifully repeats every slander in the ad, while never allowing Blumenthal's campaign to be quoted, except indirectly.

Mr. Blumenthal has acknowledged that on occasion he has misspoken about his military service. But he has said that he never intentionally misled the public about his military record.

That's it for any attempt to put this tea pot tempest in any sort of context. If memory serves, Blumenthal, who has accurately described his Vietnam-ear service hundreds if not thousands of time, "misspoke" on five documented occasions. But Hernandez will have none of that.

In Hernandez' retelling, "a handful of occasions" becomes "over the years," suggesting a consistency that the public record does not support.

There are no doubt any number of subtle psychological reasons why Blumenthal might have  misstated his Vietnam experience (survivor's guilt, anyone?) on what were, let us not forget, a handful of occasions, always off the cuff and never on the written record.

But subtlety is beyond the reach of the primitives who continue to construct their flimsy bamboo simulacra of actual reportage.

Ray Hernandez and the New York Times are obviously hugely invested in seeing Blumenthal lose.

Only then will the cargo arrive.