The mainstream media always enjoys self-proctology, especially when it involves intercity rivalries, but recent examinations seem to be escalating almost to the point of meaningful discourse. (I say "almost" because, as long as the media keeps referring to itself in the third person while making these observations, the battle for honest journalism continues.) Jude at Iddybud notes the Toronto Globe and Mail's Rick Salutin describing his fellow reporters thusly: "The media are the ushers and security guards of politics. They maintain decorum... The media's renowned critical powers mainly operate on those who violate rules inside the frame, or those like Howard Dean who breach it by saying the unspeakable." But when conservatives get to frame the rules, as they've done increasingly in the past 25 years (and especially in the past decade), it seems the media can't bend over backwards enough - tricky to do on bended knee, one would think! Jeanne D'Orleans quotes from a fascinating article in the NY Review of Books by Michael Massing about how the media have covered Iraq. Notes Jeanne, "Although Massing is critical of the press in general, he focuses particular scorn on the New York Times, and especially the reporting of Judith Miller. The Times stuck every administration claim about WMDs in Iraq on the front page, but buried contrary information, and even insulted dissenting professionals."
That Miller's fixation with getting her news from Ahmed Chalabi (a biased source if ever there was one) prevented the Times from digging deeper was expected - after all, "some reporters at the paper had relied heavily on Chalabi as a source and so were not going to write too critically about him." This goes on all over - the name of the game is access. I see it happen as well with online industry-related news sites that are reluctant to print any news critical of the companies on which they're reporting because then "they won't talk to us any more" and new content is the name of the game, gotta have that access so you have "inside info" content so you get hits or sales, yadda yadda. But the article also contains what Jeanne terms (and I concur) a real jaw-dropper - a quote from the grand dame Miller herself.
My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.And up is down. Yes, we've come to the point where a reporter for the Paper of Record actually says that journalism isn't her job - and moreover, that PR is! As an astute reader on Jeanne's comment section noted, "Funny, I thought that was Scott McClellan's job."
Notes another, "If I perform my job well, but incessantly criticize my boss's truthfulness, morality and intentions, is there anyone who would be shocked when I'm fired? Or not promoted to the big-money road-to-riches vice presidency? Of course not. Why does anyone believe for an instant that modern corporate journalism jobs are different? The interests of modern corporations are clear and so are those of their careerist employees." But as I responded, this is an explanation, not an excuse. And neither is it anything new. Journalists have been beholden to corporate barons as long as corporations have existed. Yet our history abounds with stories of reporters have managed to do their job anyway. This year, with enough feet held to the fire by blogging journalists and conscientious columnists alike, maybe a few more of them will remember what they're supposed to be doing out there in the field. Hint: it ain't maintaining decorum.
Update 1: Via Maru, another example of self-proctology as a Faux News reporter rakes Wolf Blitzer over the coals for being such a putz.
Update 2: Via Michele, anyone in NYC up for a group trip to this event to help keep investigative journalism alive? Tom Tomorrow will be there too.
0 comments:
Post a Comment