I'll rephrase: picking and choosing true anecdotes in support of a specific thesis, while leaving out other true anecdotes that don't support that thesis, isn't (in my book) that different from making up anecdotes.
I'm not accusing Gladwell of ever "lying"; I have issues with "anecdotal evidence" which deserves its bad rep, and on which Gladwell (and many, many others) built their whole careers.
I think Lehrer is early.
Some time ago, lies and distortions that are routinely used today in fiction (TV, film, even novels) would have been considered unbecoming and simply unthinkable. But nowadays, what would be unthinkable in fiction "based on a true story", would be to stick to the facts.
But journalism is also fiction; the very act of reporting isn't neutral, it creates a new reality.
I do think it's possible to do actual journalism. If we keep the error and bias level below a certain threshold, it looks factual enough. I think this attitude that modern journalists have--that we're all equally biased, so just admit your bias up front and then we'll all figure it out on our own--is lazy and wasteful. It's lazy, because if they would simply make an effort at being unbiased they would find they can do it, and it's wasteful with my time, because now it's assumed that I'll go read a bunch of other biased sources and form my opinion. This means I need three times as much journalism, and I didn't want any to begin with. So I'd say, yes, it's a fact that reporting creates a new reality, but it doesn't have to do so with the kind of audacious intentionality that most modern news does. A small amount of unintentional change is a lot more manageable than flagrant, unnecessary meddling.
As for Gladwell, I really enjoy his essays. I have a lot of trouble expressing their content after reading them, though, which made me think of them more as a form of entertainment than reporting. As for his books, I agree with you completely, they're basically bullshit. But they're an interesting diversion.
Could you elaborate on that?