The best press ombudsman in the world
by digby
I've been cheered by the major newspapers' willingness to employ an independent ombudsman over the past few years, but often disappointed in their work. Usually, they duck the most important issues and when they do weigh in are far too willing to let the insider culture rest easy.
But Margaret Sullivan at the New York Times is an exception. Her opinions are fiercely independent and she takes the fundamental responsibility of journalism seriously. Take this one:
Is Mr. Greenwald a “blogger,” as a Times headline referred to him recently? That headline was atop a profile that did not use the word journalist to describe the columnist for The Guardian United States, the New York-based Web site associated with the British newspaper. At the time, I wrote (on Twitter) that I found the headline dismissive. There’s nothing wrong with being a blogger, of course – I am one myself. But when the media establishment uses the term, it somehow seems to say, “You’re not quite one of us.” (And that might be just fine with Mr. Greenwald, who has written disparagingly of some media people, whom he calls “courtiers of power.”)
Bruce Headlam, who edits media coverage in The Times and who was an important voice in deciding that a correction was in order on the reference to Ms. O’Brien, has considered the subject.
“I don’t consider ‘blogger’ an insult and I don’t consider ‘activist’ to be an insult, either,” he said. But he acknowledges that “I might be in the minority” on those points.
He also noted, rightly, that these matters have taken on more significance in the current climate, and could be crucial for Mr. Greenwald. (Under fire, the Obama administration has recently said that it won’t pursue journalists for doing their jobs.)
On the flip side, but in the same context, the journalistic credentials of at least one established broadcaster came under attack in the last week.
Frank Rich, writing about the NBC-“Meet the Press” anchor David Gregory, smacked him around (as did many others) for asking Mr. Greenwald why he “shouldn’t be charged with a crime” for “the extent he aided and abetted” Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. leaker.
In a New York magazine piece, Mr. Rich wrote: “Is David Gregory a journalist? As a thought experiment, name one piece of news he has broken, one beat he’s covered with distinction, and any memorable interviews he’s conducted that were not with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick Durbin or Chuck Schumer.” And he derisively suggested that Mr. Gregory begin to host his network’s “Today” show, so that he can “speak truth to power by grilling Paula Deen.”
So, who’s a journalist? I could explore the legislative and legal questions, and that may be something worth returning to in this space. (Decisions that have been made in interpreting New Jersey’s strong shield law are of particular interest, as is the language before the Senate now on the proposed federal law.)
But for now, I’ll offer this admittedly partial definition: A real journalist is one who understands, at a cellular level, and doesn’t shy away from, the adversarial relationship between government and press – the very tension that America’s founders had in mind with the First Amendment.
Those who fully meet that description deserve to be respected and protected — not marginalized.
Thank you. Unfortunately, far too many journalists are so obsessed with Greenwald's personality and lack of decorum that they are ready to dismiss both his story and the underlying principles. It is the most petty example of DC provincialism I've seen since the sickening display that was the Monica Lewinsky scandal. (And frankly, the group think that defined that embarrassing episode is back on display here as well.)
This is a period of transition for journalism. The internet has scrambled the system -- and exposed the elite press as a group of powerful people who identify with the power structure they serve instead of the people. This is the essence of the Village critique --- we have a group of wealthy celebrities and their social and professional friends in positions of power whose central conceit is that they are just regular folks who represent Real America. I think their most illuminating characteristic is their total lack of self-awareness.
Here's an example from David Gregory himself:
MR. GREGORY: My mother out in California, I presume, is watching this morning. She's like a lot of Americans, worried about her job and wondering why not just bank lending, but something called nonbank lending, securitization--what is that, and why does that matter to her?
Just like Joe and Jane American everywhere, Dave's mom is fearing for her financial future and would like an explanation for why she finds herself feeling so insecure.
I have an idea. Maybe Dave could get his wife, the former General Counsel for Fannie Mae, to explain all this high flying financial mumbo jumbo to her mother-in-law. And if worse comes to worse and Ma Gregory loses her job, maybe Dave could hire her to clean his multi-million dollar Nantucket vacation home.
It's this sort of decadent myopia that gave rise to an earlier group of renegade journalists called the muckrakers. And interestingly, it was also partially driven by a change in technology:
Before World War I, the term "muckraker" was used to refer in a general sense to a writer who investigates and publishes truthful reports to perform an auditing or watchdog function. In contemporary use, the term describes either a journalist who writes in the adversarial or alternative tradition or a non-journalist whose purpose in publication is to advocate reform and change.
[...]
The muckrakers appeared at a moment when journalism was undergoing changes in style and practice. In response to yellow journalism, which had exaggerated facts, objective journalism, as exemplified by The New York Times under Adolph Ochs after 1896, turned away from sensationalism and reported facts with the intention of being impartial and a newspaper of record. The growth of wire services had also contributed to the spread of the objective reporting style...
In contrast with objective reporting, the journalists, whom Roosevelt dubbed "muckrakers", saw themselves primarily as reformers and were politically engaged. Journalists of the previous eras were not linked to a single political, populist movement as the muckrakers were associated with Progressive reforms.
Maybe you think we've been perfectly well served by the journalism served up by the Village press, particularly in the last two decades in which we saw trumped up sex scandals, partisan impeachments, stolen elections ("get over it!") wars based on lies, financial corruption on an epic scale and the evolution of a humongous, unaccountable police and military apparatus. If so, then you will not think there's much need for muckraking and you can go about your business secure in the knowledge that the wealthy elite are serving you well.
If not, then at least being a little bit respectful of those who have the courage to go against the grain and expose these massive institutional failures might be a good idea.
.