A surprisingly inane editorial column appearing in last week's Nashua Telegraph warned that the demise of our free press would have dire consequences for survival of liberty in America. It's hard to imagine that anyone would dispute that, but the writer, a guy by the name of Reg Henry, went on to argue the point anyway, lambasting imaginary "critics who wish the newspaper industry dead." He was a caricature of everything objectionable about the state of our mainstream news coverage.
The impetus for his tirade was the recent spate of newspaper bankruptcies, the latest being a couple of Philadelphia papers, the Inquirer and the Daily News. Mr. Henry writes for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, so for him these failures are beginning to hit pretty close to home. I suppose it makes sense that he would put his finger squarely on the most damaging problem a journalist could possibly face -- lack of credibility -- then deny that could ever be at the root of his industry's decline.
'Accusations of media bias are usually as silly as this. I was once accused of anti-Swiss bias – I think I made a disparaging remark about Swiss cheese being less value for money on account of the holes.
In the same absurd way, conservatives with a strong aversion to taking personal responsibility like to insist that the media put Barack Obama in the White House.
When you have an ancient candidate doddering about and team him up with a vapid moose matron who reminded voters of a younger and perkier version of the thought-free president then in office, you and your party have bigger problems than the media.
No doubt someone will e-mail me to observe that this is just the sort of remark that makes people abandon newspapers. Given the epidemic of closed-mindedness on the political extremes, this is probably correct.
For more than 300 years, newspapers have printed incendiary opinions, but only now is it being held seriously against them. (In earlier times, it was just called free speech.)
And if newspapers collectively did go soft on conservatives, then liberal and moderate readers would stop reading and not even a dead fish could get a newspaper.'
Anyone care to guess where his political sentiments lie? "...you have an ancient candidate doddering about and team him up with a vapid moose matron..." Oh, go ahead. Take a stab at it. Not that anybody would accuse him of bias. That would be silly.
The guy's a liberal, but so what. He's an opinion writer. As an opinion writer he's allowed to have an opinion. But wouldn't it be great if he had some common sense to go with it? Since he's not completely oblivious to the industry's challenges, I'll give him an "C+" for effort. It's quite valid, for example, to wonder, how does hard copy news compete in the internet world?
'In the Internet age, the problem with the print media is similar to that of the world's oldest profession, to which it is often compared, although print journalists tend not to be as attractive under a streetlight.
In a nutshell: How can a working girl make a living when everybody is giving it away? Nobody has figured it out, but you will be pleased to know that I refuse to wear fishnet stockings in a bid to increase readership.'
Contrary to what he said, there are some news outfits seem to have "figured it out." The New York Post and the Wall Street Journal seem to be avoiding bankrupcy quite nicely. And while he claimed he wouldn't prostitute himself, I think his fishnets are showing. Can he really believe it's courageous to bash conservatives?
The news industry has always been a game of access. Does anyone remember the 2007 Democratic presidential debate in Reno? No? Well, there's a reason for that. There wasn't one. The debate was to have been co-hosted by FOX News, but it was cancelled on the pretext that FOX News President Roger Ailes made a tasteless joke about then Senator Barack Obama. In reality the Dems were under intense pressure from likes of MoveOn.org to pull out. FOX is "biased" don't you know. We have that on good authority -- the Democrats.
The lesson here is that you must be nice to liberal politicians or they won't be nice to you. Give them favorable coverage and in return they will give you "access". Interviews, scoops, news leaks. Your journalistic fortune is made if you can land that exclusive interview, so it's best to say nice things when the chance comes your way.
There was an egregious example of access in return for coverage involving CNN and Saddam Hussein. Between 1990 and 2003 CNN was very careful to softpedal Saddam Hussein's human rights atrocities. It wasn't until Saddam was finally overthrown that CNN's news chief Eason Jordan came clean.
'Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for ''crimes,'' one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.
I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.'
Franklin Foer of The New Republic wrote about it. He was not impressed with Jordan's explanation.
'Would that this were an outbreak of honesty, however belated. But it isn't. If it were, Mr. Jordan wouldn't be portraying CNN as Saddam's victim. He'd be apologizing for its cooperation with Iraq's erstwhile information ministry--and admitting that CNN policy hinders truthful coverage of dictatorships. For CNN, the highest prize is "access," to score live camera feeds from a story's epicenter. Dictatorships understand this hunger, and also that it provides blackmail opportunities. In exchange for CNN bureaus, dictatorships require adherence to their own rules of reportage. They create conditions where CNN--and other U.S. media--can do little more than toe the regime's line.
The Iraq example is the telling one. Information Minister Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf has turned into an international joke, but the operation of his ministry was a model of totalitarian efficiency. The ministry compiled dossiers on U.S. journalists. It refused to issue visas to anyone potentially hostile--which meant that it didn't issue visas to reporters who strayed from al-Sahhaf's talking points. CNN correspondents Wolf Blitzer, Christiane Amanpour and Richard Roth, to name a few, were banned for critical reporting. It didn't take much to get on this list. A reporter who referred to "Saddam" (not "President Saddam Hussein") was shut out for "disrespect." If you didn't cover agitprop, like Saddam's 100% victory in October's referendum, the ministry made it clear that you were out.
Leaving, however, might have been preferable to staying under these conditions.'
That particular problem apparently never made it onto Reg Henry's radar. Instead, his analysis concluded that suddenly the "incendiary opinions" that newspapers have printed for 300 years is "now being held seriously against them," sanctimoniously pointing out that printing opinions is simply free speech. Do tell.
On the contrary, incendiary opinions are not the complaint, nor are they the problem. Conservatives are quite capable of dishing it out themselves. Does the name Ann Coulter ring a bell? In fact, conservatives would agree that a free press is crucial to the survival of freedom. Where we would disagree is with the apparent assumption by Mr. Henry that our journalistic watchdogs are ever watchful. Said Mr. Henry,
'Democratic societies need facts to function. They need watchdogs to bark and arouse us to certain facts – and those watchdogs need to be paid somehow.
You say you don't like watchdogs? You say they are biased and have been barking too much up your tree?'
About those watchdogs. A fascinating exchange occurred last October 30th between two media titans. It was just days before the election, mind you, when Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw marveled on PBS at how little they knew about Barack Obama's foreign policy views. To the question from Rose, have we had a serious foreign policy debate, Brokaw said,
'We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all, which is astonishing.'
Just for balance they mentioned that they didn't really know what to expect from John McCain, either -- a stunning admission by such a prominent pair. They seemed to wonder themselves, couldn't somebody maybe have asked some questions about it before then? You know, some reporter maybe? (The interview, which was nearly an hour long, can be found here. The foreign policy topic came up at about the 28:15 mark.)
Instead, the journalistic hoards went on their Alaskan gold rush to determine whose baby Trig Palin is. Now we are treated to the spectacle of media news luminaries coming to the realization that Obama is not who they thought he was: David Brooks of the New York Times, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer of CNBC, to name a few. Even MSNBC's Chris Matthews, he of the tingling leg, seems to be having his doubts. Remarkable.
Incendiary opinion is not the problem. Biased reporting is not the problem. Lack of credibility is the problem. It hasn't occurred to Mr. Henry that news consumers might just be turning away from news organizations that they no longer trust to deliver truth.
Deliver it, hell! They wouldn't even dare to find it out for fear that it would destroy their fantasies. You might recall when Senator Obama and his delirious journalistic following insisted that a President Obama would be best to restore America's standing with our allies. This after its supposed deterioration at the hands of the Bush administration. Didn't we get a taste of President Obama in action when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit.
'President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week. His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling. First Brown wasn't granted a press conference with flags, then one was hastily arranged in the Oval office after the Brits had to beg. Obama looked like he would rather have been anywhere else than welcoming the British leader to his office and topped it all with his choice of present (*) for the PM. A box of 25 DVDS including ET, the Wizard of Oz and Star Wars? Oh, give me strength. We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic. Even Gordon Brown will have seen those films too often already.'
Lest we think that Great Britain is officially no longer an ally of the Unitied States, the Obama administration has offered up an explanation for the shabby treatment of the Prime Minister and his wife. Power Line captures it perfectly in the title of its post on it, Don't Blame Us, We're Incompetent!.
'Where to begin? Obama, after two years of expressing smug contempt for the Bush administration, is "surprised at the sheer volume" of work the President has to do. And he's too tired to deal competently with one of the most important foreign officials he will meet during his term in office. So: maybe he should cut down on the late-night White House partying?
And why in the world does the White House--let alone the State Department!--not have someone who is "[familiar] with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister?" If true, this is rank incompetence.'
Where were our watchdogs of the press for two years of presidential campaigning? Certainly not anyplace where they would be in danger of learning about Obama's readiness for the presidency -- or lack of it. What we seem to have are the kind of watchdogs who slumber peacefully while burglars ransack the house, waking in time to snarl and bite the mailman. But aren't they fetching in fishnets.
