|
|
April 1, 2006“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”Over at CBS’s Public Eye they’ve tapped Samuel Freedman for a piece in their “Outside Voices” section (full disclosure, yer anchoress guested over there last October, so I tend to like this feature!) Freedman is a professor of journalism at Columbia University and a columnist on Education for The New York Times, and he is writing about the reality or illusion that is “citizen journalism,” as one may find it on the internet or elsewhere these days, and whether Big Time Professional Journalism is helped or hindered by the existance of people snapping photos with their telephones and uploading video onto the ‘net. Or, you know, tapping out their quaint little thoughts while wearing comfy slippers. I frankly don’t know if I support the idea of “citizen journalism” as “legitimate” journalism. I think there is more to being a journalist than merely having a phone in the camera or knowing how to write a url code to link you to an article. I do not consider myself a “journalist,” by the way. I’m just a writer who is driven to write all the time. That said, I think a real journalist is - or should be - first a writer or photographer who is in love with his craft. Add to that some tenacity, a determination to report the facts of a story rather than only those items suitable for framing and spinning, and a willingness to make even one’s heroes uncomfortable, now and then, if a story warrants it. There is that old chestnut, “a journalist is supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” (Gee, I wonder just how “afflicted” anyone name Clinton or Kennedy or Albright or Kerry has felt over the last few years.) I’ve been ragging for a little while that perhaps journalism served us better back when a reporter was more gristle and whiskey than greasepaint and merlot, and I have not yet surrendered to the idea that a journalist need be someone with a degree in journalism. After all, look at all the “journalists” who only identified as such after they’d left the Clinton White House. Up to then, they’d been lawyers or political strategists, or ivy-league alums bearing degrees in art history. Suddenly, they’re all journalists! And I’m sure Mr. Freedman has no problem referring to them as such. too. But I wonder if Mr. Freedman would look at the last 12 months work of, say, Ed Morrissey from Captain’s Quarters Blog and consider that his ethical, tenacious, accurate and provocative work - particularly regarding the corruption of the liberal Canadian government - was something less than journalism, simply because Ed is just a guy with a blog and not a “journalist.” I wonder if he would look at Brian Maloney’s (and Michelle Malkin’s) tireless work uncovering the sleazy financing ops at Air America (a story the NY Times never actually did cover) and say that this carefully researched, meticulously documented expose’ was something less than “real” reportage because - well, because Brian did not graduate from a J-school and his work was not featured in the correct forum. And let’s talk about that forum, for a second. While kvetching about the internet and cable-tv, Freedman, to his credit, spends a little time acknowledging both the larger screw-ups of “legitimate journalism” (Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, etc…he misses Eason Jordan being tire-necklaced), but he seems more concerned with what he calls “the devastating near-misses, the almost-correct articles or broadcasts undermined by a fatal error…” That would be Rathergate, Korangate, etc. He doesn’t mention New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau’s strangely inaccurate take on the opinions of five FISA judges discussing the legality of the NSA wiretaps last week, but perhaps the deadlines crossed. What I found troublesome was Freedman’s assertion that Fox News - which is populated with such reputable professional journalists as Brit Hume and Chris Wallace (and some people of dubious repute, like Ellen Ratner and ummm…that girl with the pink fish lips…) may be equated with Air America Radio. You know, Air America - home of Randi Rhodes using firearms sound effects while discussing President Bush? Regular readers of this blog know I am no fan of Fox News - I dislike it just as much as I dislike the rest of broadcast news, which is to say quite a little bit. But when a professor of journalism (and NY Times columnist) cannot discern a difference - quite a broad one - between Fox News and Air America, then I have to question his entire premise, which seems to be that professional, “trained” journalists are somehow better able to present accurate information with intelligent commentary. In equating the two, Freedman betrays a breathtaking willingness to lump together things which are quite different and call them all “cake.” And he seems all-too willing to de-legitimise a real, “trained journalist” like Hume, who has surely earned the title, simply because he doesn’t think much of where Hume works. It’s not the “right sort” of news outlet, and therefore it’s something other than what he and his contemporaries might call “real.” Freedman writes:
I don’t disagree with Freedman that blogs and talk-radio provide happy “Amen-corners” for folks who would rather insulate themselves from different viewpoints. I simply believe that Freedman and his ilk - the “professional, legitimate news outlets” are as insulated and amen-y as those they denigrate. If information comes their way that doesn’t fit the template of their world-view, (Ratzinger? An Enforcer Pope, 45,000 boxes of documents from Iraq? They’re ALL unimportant! Global Warming? It’s real, and President Bush has stubbornly ignored the issue and done nothing!) they don’t know what to do with it. Or, perhaps they do: downplay it until the next newscycle and hope no one remembers. Freedman mentions the “gate-keepers” - the supposed shining-light of “legitimate” journalism - the “mediating intelligence” that separates “real” journalism from frummery and partisan hackery. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” It means, “who will guard the guards,” or “who will act as gatekeeper to the gatekeepers?” But the thing is, a legitimate gatekeeper - one seriously committed to his trusted charge, one dedicated to the service of the whole tribe - should be only to happy to know that - for his own protection - he too must know the password and be able to prove who he is. Our gatekeepers in the press seem oddly offended by that idea. And sadly, they are not at all impressed that technophobic little me has just typed in all of those long url codes, linking to interesting information and opinion that the “official gatekeepers” and “mediating intelligences” don’t believe the rest of us need to think about. UPDATE: Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse makes the case for the efficacy of editors and notes the occasional breakdown in sanity we see in the blogosphere. Emotionalism is plain bad fuel for the gatekeepers and their watchers, too. UPDATE II: I imagine Mr. Freedman would call this another unfortunate near miss. There’s a sort-of correction, however. In the 17th paragraph. Related: Delivering the news with a poisoned rag http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/04/01/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes/trackback/ 16 Responses to ““Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”” |
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:46 am
What’s wrong with a lot of reporters and “journalists” is exactly what David Brinkley said was wrong with Bill Clinton — no imagination.
They used to explain politicians in terms of complex emotional motivations. MoDowd often still does, though she makes those motivations out to be silly and vapid. Bottom line is, she’s pretty dopy. Anyway, she’s more interested in giving lessons in how to have feelings justificatory of her politics, than in facts & logic. Now most journalists tend to explain politicians in terms of complex political motives, especially in politicians whom they dislike, and it would be a kind of improvement over the emotional motivation explanations if they were more even-handed about it, but even supposing such, it’s still a confining template.
Actually, I doubt I have the kind of imagination needed for the job I’d like to see done, but, conveeeniently, I’m not a reporter.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:29 am
“a determination to report the facts of a story rather than only those items suitable for framing and spinning,”
The problem, Dear Anchoress, is that facts are as boring as history. And becomes interesting when it becomes relevant, and relevant when it can be used … to predict the future!
You even note this latter when you add the need for “commentary”.
What people really want in the news, today, are “facts” that won’t happen until tomorrow.
Sorry I missed your PE note; some of the anti-Anchoress comments were sooooo definitely PC. You wrote a fine column; but I don’t watch network news (since I’m in Slovakia!).
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:51 am
[...] Excellent vent on the Fourth Estate. The Anchoress writes so cleverly, the word pictures just pop right out in your mind… "… journalism served us better back when a reporter was more gristle and whiskey than greasepaint and merlot…" [...]
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
When People magazine is the most widely-read periodical in the country, I think the problem is that most media’s focus is on entertainment (scandal! decadence!) or sensationalism (We’re going to die! Or maybe California will be covered in water in the next 200 years!).
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
[...] Related:Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes Anchoress on CBS Evening News A Few Thoughts on the Eve of Couric [...]
August 30th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
[...] Related: It’s Really Petty to Restent What a Man Reads That Moron Bush is Reading my Book? Anchoress - Outside Voices Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am
[...] This is where things stand, September 2006, in the world of information dissemination. Blogs have made inroads, but not enough, and all of their fact-checking amounts to little more than soundwaves in the echo chamber. “One side” of the partisan chasm has the whole story and sits nearly impotent with it, while the other has the “preferred story,” accredited and promoted by the “mediating intelligences,” who still (and will for the foreseeable future) hold the largest sway over public opinion, by sheer dint of their control of public knowledge. [...]
October 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
[...] The “mediating intelligences” decided long ago that 45,000 boxes of documents from Iraq were uninteresting and they simply don’t cover what is being discovered within those boxes. [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:55 am
[...] In my experience, Ed Morrissey is going to be the go-to “Captain” on this story, so check back with him throughout the day. He more than anyone (and certainly not the “mediating intelligences of the press”) has been keeping track of the slow, steady translations workand the info we’re gleaning from 45,000 boxes of Iraqi documents no one else seems to care about. [...]
November 27th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
[...] Flopping Aces is making a very serious charge against the mainstream media. If what he is laying out proves to be more than a suspicion, well…then the “mediating intelligences” and “high priests” in the press need to address it, for the sake of their church. I’m not holding my breath for that, but still. [...]
December 29th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
[...] But yeah, watch out for those grey areas. There be monsters. And um…mediating intelligences who know what you ought to be allowed to know much better than you do. [...]
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
[...] This is not new, of course. Just astonishingly arrogant and overt. [...]
January 7th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
[...] Credible news reports matter because the press possesses the public trust and therefore they have a charge - a duty - to do all they can to ascertain that the information they pass on to the nation is as accurate as it can be. The embrasure of that duty is an honorable one and a privilege. Honest journalism - whether popular or not - is as much a service to the nation as is a noble military or an uncorrupted government. Honest journalism tells the good and the bad without passion or prejudice, respecting the right of the people to “know” and the right of the government to hold classified what it deems truly necessary for the good and welfare of nations. Honest journalism respects the reader enough to trust him or her to receive information with an active mind, and welcomes the reader’s ability to question what it reads, to look for clarification, if necessary. The craft of honest journalism is less an imperious handing down of selected information by “mediating intelligences” than a provocative waltz between writer and reader, both partners challenging, encouraging and turning in sync. [...]
January 7th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
[...] Credible news reports matter because the press possesses the public trust and therefore they have a charge - a duty - to do all they can to ascertain that the information they pass on to the nation is as accurate as it can be. The embrasure of that duty is an honorable one and a privilege. Honest journalism - whether popular or not - is as much a service to the nation as is a noble military or an uncorrupted government. Honest journalism tells the good and the bad without passion or prejudice, respecting the right of the people to “know” and the right of the government to hold classified what it deems truly necessary for the good and welfare of nations. Honest journalism respects the reader enough to trust him or her to receive information with an active mind, and welcomes the reader’s ability to question what it reads, to look for clarification, if necessary. The craft of honest journalism is less an imperious handing down of selected information by “mediating intelligences” than a provocative waltz between writer and reader, both partners challenging, encouraging and turning in sync. [...]
May 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am
[...] horrible story that didn’t make the news back in January because it apparently made the “mediating intelligences” uncomfortable, or something. I recall a while back columnist Jeff Jacoby writing about another [...]
December 14th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
[...] don’t intend to retrace my rant; you can read it all here, but from time to time I do get reminded that those “mediating intelligences” who run [...]