The Media, Losing Their Way (washingtonpost.com)
INDC caught up with Bob Schieffer of CBS and got him to do an impromptu interview.
Schieffer: But the reporter has the responsibility to determine, number one, whether that is true, and number two, to make a judgment as to whether it's in the public interest and whether or not it should be part of the debate.
Allah picked up on some of remarks and linked to a piece by David Broder in today's WaPo.
UPDATE: Someone had better sit Schieffer down with "real journalist" Josh Marshall and have him explain that last part again. I wonder, is Marshall one of the bloggers David Broder has in mind when he says "the Internet opened the door to scores of 'journalists' who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering"? Or, per the Philadelphia Inquirer's op-ed editor, am I peddling "Orwellian poison" by even asking that question?
I've always liked Schieffer's style and while Broder has struck me as veering more left over past years (or maybe I've just been going more right) but neither man appears to really get it.
Broder: After almost a half-century in this business, I certainly feel a sense of shame and embarrassment at our performance. The feeling is not relieved by the awareness that others in journalism not only did fine work on other stories but took the lead in exposing these instances of gross malpractice.
By their own admission, they are only capable of viewing the Internet and the Blogoshpere from within their own heretofore protected world as gatekeepers of what the public gets to see, hear and read. In my view, the Blogosphere is not really about a revolution in "Journalism." It is more about a revolution in information - mainly it's transmission, sharing and analysis.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it create a fourth estate granted some holy power to evaluate and disseminate (or not) information or news, the very life's blood of a thriving Democracy. I suspect if the Founding Fathers were around to see what is happening as regards media today, or more importantly the mediums used to evaluate and share information, they'd be thrilled.
They always envisioned a government of, by and for the people. To have good government people need information. People now have more information at their finger tips than ever before in history and the MSM sees it as the worst possible outcome of a technological age. Obviously, I strongly disagree and suggest it is really the opposite. The Internet and Blogs are the best thing that could happen for Democracy at this point in America's history.
My suspicion is that it stems from a widespread loss of confidence in both the values of journalism and the economic viability of the news business.
Nonsense, Mr. Broder ... and utterly condescending. You are suggesting that individuals capable of accessing and exchanging information on their own do not value truth, honesty or clarity, the very same ideals "news" organizations were SUPPOSED to embody and, to some extent, have failed miserably to live up to. Why not give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that the greater world, the true body politic is made up of "Springer" watchers. It isn't. It is comprised of honest and concerned citizens with both curiosity and comittment to truth as it relates to this Nation's government?
The first symptom of wavering confidence that I spotted came when news organizations -- television particularly, but print as well -- began offering their most prestigious and visible jobs not to people deeply imbued with the culture and values of newsrooms, but to stars imported from the political world.
Exactly, Mr. Broder, big media became big business and it left the people behind. It is no longer a populist enterprise conducted by truth seekers with rumpled clothing. Local journalism may still claim that altruistic banner, but certainly not elite media, of which, Sir, you are more than a part.
These hires were made by executives who themselves had little commitment to the solid and steady journalistic values that come from working a beat for a sustained period of time. They were looking for quick fixes for their circulation or ratings -- and they thought the star system or the "big story" would save them.
With all due respect, Mr. Broder, you are not separate from the practices and protocols of big media. You have spent your career inside the belly of the beast, as it were. Why now bemoan what has happened to it, if you feel it is wrong? Where were you and others of like mind over the last many years as this amazing transformation happened? Where were you and those of like mind when Bernard Goldberg began to speak out about the problems of the MSM? I didn't see a rash of people running to his side to support him. I saw big media circle the wagons and protect itself against a traitor. It's a little late to play the blame game now, isn't it?
We've wandered a long way from safe ground in the news business. Sometimes I wonder if we can find our way back.
Stop with the royal "we" stuff, Mr. Broder. That's as clear an indication of the problem as can be. The MSM became a "we." The Internet and the Blogosphere is not a "we," Sir. It is comprised of many serious minded, clear thinking individuals on the left and right fully capable of exploring and evaluating "truth" and information for themselves, individually, "under God (or not), and with liberty and justice for all." Nowhere is it written that some royal "we" of high minded gatekeepers cum elitests were endowed by some creator, or any Governmental policy to be the soul arbiters of what is or isn't "relevant" to the day's political discourse. Get over it, Mr. Broder, you've only yourself to blame. And, really, there should be no blame at all. Democracy has simply passed MSM by in certain respects; though most certainly it will continue to play a crucial role as we go forward. Instead of wringing your hands about what, in your eyes, has been lost. I'd suggest you get your very bright mind around the new paradigm and start figuring out the why, what and how of your role within it in the future.
You are still very important, Mr. Broder. But this "we" crap has to stop. The appropriate word now would be "us." And isn't THAT what democracy is supposed to be all about?
Comments