"even the most egregious reporters can make big bucks and become media darlings."

Really? I don't think any of the journalists I know got that message.

Shit, I'm a bleedin' lefty and I'm unemployed. What am I doing wrong?

I know that large groups of very intelligent people can fall into a collective delusion ...

Just like any other religion.

Great article! This lady is spot on and did her homework.
Thanks for sharing.
This article is very much worth printing and saving for future reference.
Thanks again.

I'm noticing a pattern here.

It was an amazing book, (evil genes) I read it in a few weeks ago, I second Miss Alkon's recommendation!

Barabara Oakley is a national treasure.

"Socialism, with its "spread the wealth" mentality intended to help society's underdogs, sounds ideal. "

This kumbaya stuff is a very old and appealing ideology. It's all through the OT prophets, so much so that Jesus spoke up against simple-minded and excessive adherence to it. It goes against nature.

There were no governmental checks and balances and nothing even close to a free press — so positions of power were filled by nasty sorts who kept good people in fear for their lives if they didn’t think the right thoughts. Soviet Socialism, as it turned out, was a perverse system that killed motivation even as it made fear as natural as breathing.

This is why the government should be limited in its power and reach.

I am convinced that journalism changed forever with "Watergate". Two unknown reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, with very good investigative reporting, brought down a president and became media darlings for decades. Woodward still appears on television and his books are on the New York Times best seller lists. No doubt he earns a high six figure income.
Students who enroll in journalism school see themselves as a future Woodward or Bernstein. They know they can do good if they can find a "gotcha" story. I am convinced that "Watergate" changed journalists from a balanced news man merely reporting the news (how dreary !) to an activist with an agenda.

> "Journalism, like social work,
> tends to attract individuals
> with a keen interest in
> bettering the world."

No no no, a thousand times no. Oakley's quotation marks don't excuse the presumption. Journalists don't want to save the world, they want to be loved by people as if they had, and it's not at all the same thing.

Nick, that's an interesting theory. Watergate certainly was the apex of the "superhero journalist" era. If you think about it, the public perception of reporters in general was definitely very good at the time; you had all kinds of TV shows about crime-solving journalists, and before that, there were things like the "Brenda Starr, Reporter" comic strip. That period probably goes back to the Depression years, and American journalism definitely earned itself a gold star during WWII.

What's interesting, as you state, is that American journalism started to decline shortly after Watergate. There seems to have been a change in the perception of the reporter, from tireless champion of the public, to rock star who is famous for being famous. And we know that a number of high-profile muckraking investigations and journalists since then were subsequently exposed as frauds, culminating in Dan Rather's forged Bush National Guard memos.

And now the public perception of the journalist in general is much, much lower than it was in 1975, based on the polls I've seen. In fact, it's probably as low as it was in the early 20th-century "yellow journalism" period, although I'm not aware of any polling data that goes back that far. And I think you're right in that something about the Woodward and Bernstein business (I'm not sure what) started it, by changing the journalist from someone who was famous for what he did, into someone who was famous for being a famous journalist. Once that happened, corruption was inevitable.

The part that amazes me is that the journalism industry still refuses to admit that it has a problem, much less get around to doing anything about it. The general reaction of the journalist to the decline of traditional media has been to blame the customer for being too stupid to realize the brilliance of the product. We've seen this in other industries before: an old-line business, culturally incapable of recognizing its built-up shortcomings, tries everything it can to force the public to accept its product as it is, rather than adapt. It tries everything, from PR campaigns to convince the public that its survival is essential to the nation's economy, to spreading baseless rumors about its competitors, to special pleading with government for protection, to outright bribery and political cronyism. In the long run, I don't think it's going to work any better for the media industry than it has worked for GM.

P.S.: just ordered the book from the Mall. Thanks, Amy!

>>Journalists don't want to save the world, they want to be loved by people as if they had, and it's not at all the same thing.

Exactly, Crid.
Journalists get their jollies writing about stuff other people are doing.

For a journalist to get confused about the distinction between doing - and writing about it - ain't always bad. Ego can create terrific gotcha! pieces. But, on the whole, your generalization is pretty sound.

Amy —

Let's send out an Advice Goddess Blog Summer Fun kit –that's the sports bottle (the one with the barking little gay dog likeness), sun visor with Eiffel Tower logo, and chartreuse-&-Cerise pink beer koozie– to Jody ASAP. I'll pick up the cost through my usual account. (The quiet one, the one that the IRS doesn't know about.)

I'd accuse her of pandering, she's so right-on.

>>I'd accuse her of pandering, she's so right-on.

My surname may rhyme with Cressida - but I'm no Pandarus, Crid.

(Sorry. Not really - that was irresistible!)

Don't toy with me. You had me at:

> Journalists get their jollies
> writing about stuff other people
> are doing.

It's the thing I couldn't find the spirit to write. Journalists are immature people who ride around in cars to places of crisis. They take pictures of disheveled people in pain. Then they go home, watch a porn movie and eat something frozen. The next morning they take a shower and do the same thing. They view the world as an endless series of immoral crises. They themselves have never invested in anything and never hired anyone for a job. They have no idea what it takes to build a business or create anything that won't be used to wrap fish by the weekend. In the typical journalist's imagination, anyone who lives in comfort is someone who's never been down to the streets, babe...

Which is true, except that the only reason they were on the street is that they were paid to be there. And at the end of the day, whether the crisis was over or whether it wasn't, the journalist went home.

Hi Amy,

You are truly a Goddess and what makes you so special is you have no empathy for anyone. You are the queen of mean and are able to crush these journalists like bugs.

Why hasn't the New York Times returned that Pulitzer? I think you need an even broader reach. I think that you are uniquely qualified to decide what other undeserved Pulitzers need to be returned.

Because you have no feelings or emotions, you have true clarity. Keep us informed.

"Journalists don't want to save the world, they want to be loved by people as if they had, and it's not at all the same thing."

This goes to the hunger for celebrity Cousin Dave mentions above.

Do you remember an Eagles song form the late 70's "Dirty Laundry", which paints in an even anstioer light, not as fame-hungry dweebs but as venal, blood-sucking vultures.

How many social scientists predicted that the billions spent on busing and the Projects would worsen the situations they were meant to solve, as ultimately happened?

Hell, how many would admit it even now with the facts at their disposal?

They themselves have never invested in anything and never hired anyone for a job. They have no idea what it takes to build a business or create anything that won't be used to wrap fish by the weekend.

And they never studied science or history or business or economics or spent any serious effort studying any subject but journalism in journalism school.

As the world is getting more complex, their overall knowledge base is becoming more limited.

The good news is, they're all losing their jobs.

Great article; it's an important perspective well-presented. But can we knock off with the journalist trashing? Yes, some of them are idealistic and naive and some are corrupt and venal and some are just biased and incompetent. Let's remember, though, that when given the choice between a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, Thomas Jefferson wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter. There is a lot to criticize when it comes to the media, but think about it - there is a lot to criticize when it comes to our culture overall. If the rest of us are fat lazy fame-seeking slobs who don't want to read anything intellectually challenging, we're going to get tabloid journalism (capitalism at work!), and that attitude will permeate even august institutions like the Times and the Post (after all, they have to stay afloat, too).

But yeah, really excellent article.

> There is a lot to criticize when
> it comes to the media

Yes, CB! Ceeb-meister! There certainly is. You got it, dude.

Jefferson was saying (I aver without investigation) that if you just stay out of people's way and let them communicate as they see fit, that they'll do better than if you tell them what to do in isolation, no matter how grand your intentions.

CB - the problem here is that the media is one step removed from being state run.

I mean, when you've got the President's office calling the CEOs of the major networks and TELLING them when they will be giving The One a prime-time slot, and you've got the media intentionally burying stories that are harmful to The One's agenda, you don't have a free press.

You have a sycophant press with its lips securely locked on the phallus of the President.

Which is more harmful than no press at all.

I became one because I love recording people's stories. So many people lead such interesting lives, and they don't even know it. Their stories would be lost forever if someone didn't write it all down.

Crid - I don't think that's what Jefferson was saying at all; you're talking about freedom of association, which is also important but entirely different. "Press" refers not to random communication between individuals (also a good and important thing, naturally) but to the organized and public dissemination of investigative, analytical, and editorial/opinion writing. Sure, a lot of the media fall short of this these days, but there is still good reporting and analysis out there. It's not generally found on MSNBC or Fox News or any of the other TV shows that seem to consist of various ideologues (of both the left and the right political persuasions) shouting sensationalistic nonsense at each other; it's in journals and blogs and yes, even newspapers. Having institutions with the power to shine a light onto the malfeasance of the powerful is a critical aspect of a free and informed society, and protecting the right of any person to publish his or her views is just as critical.

Brian - as usual, you take a halfway decent idea and stretch it to the point of nonsense. Yes, sometimes major news organizations act as stenographers for the administration; it happened with Bush, it's happening with Obama. But to consider the American media "one step being removed from state run" is just ridiculous - the equivalent of a feminist who claims that the U.S. is a horrible patriarchy where women are oppressed. Yes, there is sexism in the U.S., and yes, some media outlets are biased. But to suggest that we're anywhere close to state run suggests you don't really understand what it would mean to be in a country like, say, China. You cannot reasonably claim that every outlet in the America media engages in nothing but Obama-fellation - not when we have George Will and Charles Krauthammer and our friends at Reason all publishing many pieces in papers like the Washington Post, not even mentioning the thousands of smaller voices with their criticisms as well.

CB - Before you hurl more insults and invective my way, you would do well to pay attention to the way things are happening with the media.

First of all, there was no major news organization acting as a "stenographer" for the Bush administration. The media coverage was uniformly hostile outside a few niche areas. Anyone remember the brutal Afghan winter? Quagmire? My Pet Goat?

Second, would anyone in America know who Gerald Walpin was if it were not for the alternative media? The AP/NYT/ABCNNBCBS cabal couldn't spike that story hard enough. It was only when it became obvious it wasn't going away that they even bothered to cover it, and even then only to repeat the administration's position that they fired him because he's senile.

Seriously, if you cannot even admit that the bulk of the mainstream media is one step removed from the official Democratic Party Talking Points Machine, then we really can't have this conversation.

If you actually consider my use of the word nonsense to be "invective," then I apologize for offending your sensibilities.

You have GOT to be joking by suggesting that there was no media stenography during the Bush administration. Judith Miller? Embedded journalists?

And you'll notice that I specifically criticized the big television "news" sources. Human beings have more trouble absorbing facts and critically analyzing issues when they are presented through speech rather than writing, so it makes perfect sense that that particular medium would be a breeding ground for groupthink and idiocy (I note you did not mention Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other wildly successful right-wing viewpoints.) I'm talking about a free press where there is no need to worry about being arrested for publishing your views, no matter how critical or offensive they are.

So in what way is our press not free? What restrictions are placed on it, and by whom?

RE: Evil genes. I can't hear that phrase and not think of The Bad Seed .

CB - What good is a "free" press if they can't be bothered to be objective?

In other words, it doesn't matter who is doing the restricting. Sure, nobody's being arrested. But nobody's reporting what's going on until they are forced to.

You think we'd know about the shit sandwich of Cap and Trade without politicians being questioned by J. Random Blogger?

(I note you did not mention Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other wildly successful right-wing viewpoints.)

Name one other nominally right-wing viewpoint that's "successful".

At least Limbaugh has forced the (in his words) drive-by media to cover things they wanted to ignore.

And you'll notice that I specifically criticized the big television "news" sources.

Where do you think they get their talking points? The New York Times.

Come on, when you read a headline on the NYT, and that same headline - more or less - shows up in every major newspaper, and the phrasing from the article ends up on every broadcast news source (including Fox) then you know something's amiss.

We have a press that's made itself unfree because they have an agenda they want to push, and they will do so even if they have to ignore or make up the news.

CB,
Brilliant comments. I agree, there is some excellent journalism out there among all the noise.

Brian,
You seem to regard Limbaugh as the guru of samizdat in the USA. Which makes your concept of an "unfree" press exactly backwards!

Anyway, you appear to prefer YOUR news predigested. Wasn't it you on a recent Palin thread who claimed you hadn't bothered to read the text of her resignation speech? You said you didn't need to - because your pet opinion-makers had already told you it didn't matter?

(Obviously, I'll shoot myself if that wasn't your comment. And I mean "shoot myself" in exactly the same way you've been trotting out sundry threats of violence in recent threads!)

I don't know, Jody; I've got to pretty much agree with Brian. Rush and Fox News draw an audience, but their audience is mostly the flyover-country audience; they have near-zero influence with any of the bicoastals who determine both government policy and what the MSM will cover. It's documented that mainstream journalists vote Democrat at at 95% clip, and there are many MSM journalists who openly admit their bias. And think about that: they wouldn't do so, at least not in public, if they weren't certain that it meets with their management's approval.

Look at the slew of anti-U.S. Iraq-themed war films that have been cranked out in the last eight years. Without fail, they bomb at the box office, yet Hollywood keeps cranking them out. So what's the motivation? Clearly, the people who are doing them are so ideologically motivated that they are willing to lose millions of dollars on these films. Either that, or they are receiving under-the-table funding from anti-U.S. interests (which, I would argue, constitutes outright treason). Either way, it isn't flattering to the industry. And then we have the NYT, the biggest newspaper in the country, openly campaigning for a government bailout. C'mon -- do you really think that a news organization with a shred of ethics would do that? No, they are completely, totally, 100% in the tank. They only run the occasional conservative-slanted piece so they can maintain plausible deniability.

The only place where Brian might be wrong is his statement about journalists' desire for a media that is state-run. I think that what they actually want is a government that is media-run. And to a fair extent, they have accomplished that.

>>Look at the slew of anti-U.S. Iraq-themed war films that have been cranked out in the last eight years. Without fail, they bomb at the box office, yet Hollywood keeps cranking them out. So what's the motivation?

Cousin Dave,
(We'd probably kill each other in real life, but you make some sharp points sometimes...).

However, Hollywood proves very little about anything. I agree actually that some of the anti-US films have been excruciating. OTOH, I know some Republicans who reckon Iraq was a mistake - don't you? Anyway, who the fuck cares if some Hollywood producers took a punt on a few conscience movies finding their niche - and lost their shirts.

I can't buy brian's belly aching about a media under the boot of leftie ideology. If he doesn't appreciate the freedom to dissent here, he really should get on slow boat to China. (He's just out of sorts because of that insurance he doesn't think he's going to be able to buy - even though he didn't have it in the first place.)

Freedom to dissent?

Like Bjorn Lomborg?

The only difference here is that instead of killing you, they just discredit you and try to get you fired.

It's not bellyaching, it's the truth. We've got (as Dave said) the largest-circulation paper in the United States — referred to colloquially as "The paper of record" — asking for a government bailout. We've got left-leaning journalists (but I repeat myself) openly calling for a state-financed media.

But there's no problem here. The media spent more time tearing "Joe the Plumber" a new asshole for daring to question The One than they every did investigating Obama's policy positions, his voting record, even his educational accomplishments.

But they aren't in the bag for Obama. Nah. They just want so badly for him to succeed that they actively seek to destroy anyone who opposes his agenda.

> The only difference here is that
> instead of killing you, they just
> discredit you and try to get you
> fired.

That's hardly a snicker-worthy distinction, whatever you think of Lomborg.

There's more to life than teenage sarcasm.

"OTOH, I know some Republicans who reckon Iraq was a mistake - don't you?"

Oh sure, absolutely. I expect that debate will go on for decades; there are ramifications to having to make the choice (whether we did it or not) that will only become clear in the historical context. But there's a big difference between "The Iraq War was a bad move" and "American soldiers are sadistic baby-killers", which seems to constitute a lot of what we get from the media.

I don't have a read on how old you are, Jody, so I'm not sure if you were around for Vietnam. Are you aware of how Vietnam vets were treated when they came home? It was horrible. The media and the anti-war movement protrayed all of them, almost without exception, as deranged lunatics unfit to live in civilized society. It's one thing to oppose a decision to go to war; reasonable people can usually disagree on that. It's another thing to assign blame for unpopular war decision on the soldiers who answer the call of duty and serve their country honorably.

>>...as deranged lunatics unfit to live in civilized society.

Seriously, watch the hyperbole there, Cousin Dave.

I've read enough to know there was a ton of hatred for the war itself and specifically for the deranged politician lunatics acting on behalf of civilized society for some of it to be dumped on the soldiers too. Wrong target, I agree.

But let's not rerun Hanoi Jane here.

Look, you - and Brian - appear to think the US media is in the grip of the left. I think the latest editorial in the NY Times means diddly squat compared to the muscle employed by lobbyists and that the same old interest groups are probably running the country anyway.

When you compare free speech here to the truly gov't controlled press in a huge proportion of the countries the US merrily trades with, there is bugger all to complain about.

It's worse somewhere else, so don't complain about how bad it is here.

Nice retort. And about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

The left kept finding "veterans" against the Iraq war that NEVER SERVED. They never checked, and when confronted with the fact that Jeese MacBeth and others WERE FRAUDS, they simply shrugged and walked away. This is not the behavior of a responsible media. This is not the act of a "free" press.

It is the act of a press that has become nothing more than the propaganda wing of a political movement.

You say we're over-reacting. I say you're out of your mind.

Self-rule requires an informed citizenry. When the media from which the bulk of those citizens gets their information is filtering, dissembling, and outright lying...

Well, you see what happens. We get Obama and friends.

The media have been complicit with the Democratic party in committing electoral fraud in the last two elections. How the fuck can you say that they are "free" and "unbiased"? How can you say that they are to be trusted in the role of exposing government corruption when they are aiding and abetting said corruption?

Spare me your moral equivalence. Spare me your bullshit judgments.

> Hollywood proves very little about anything

Crazy talk. Take it back! She blasphemes Allah.

What a great group of commentators! Except for one thing. If you are ever lucky enough to have dinner with Amy (and her wonderful boyfriend Gregg), you would never, ever, say she had no empathy. She would never in a million years admit to this, but she is one of the most empathetic, caring people I've ever met.

I'm sure plenty of people here are familiar with Francisco D'Anconia's "money speech" in Atlas Shrugged. Brian's comments remind me of a part towards the end:

"The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will."
(http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826)

That's what I think when I hear this ludicrous argument that the American media is anywhere in the proximity of "state-run" - that somehow a free press where individuals and corporations are free to publish what they like, even if you don't agree with it or find it useful. And obviously SOMEONE is publishing information about corruption, or we wouldn't know about it. As Crid aptly pointed out, the distinction between an individual being able to be petty and vindictive against a colleague and a government being able to kill that same person is not something to take lightly. (To return to part of my original comment, I can't see how you would find that distinction unimportant unless you also somehow agree with the people who think that the existence of any amount of private sexism or racism somehow makes our society fundamentally oppressive.)

I say things are free when they are free. That means free to do things that others might judge as bad, and I wouldn't think I'd have to explain that to someone on a libertarian-leaning forum like this. Can you explain exactly what you're proposing here? Do you want the press to be restricted in some way because you are unhappy with the way that some of them act?

(Oh, and you wanted other right-leaning outlets, so here we go: the Wall Street Journal, Drudge Report, Washington Times, many religious organizations (Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, etc.), the Wall Street Journal, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, The Weekly Standard, the New York Post, The National Review, just to name a few. The Economist is fairly right-leaning as well. Frankly, if you couldn't think of even a few of these "nominally" "successful" right-wing viewpoints, I'm not sure you have much credibility when commenting on the media.)

Oops, the first line of the third paragraph should read:

That's what I think when I hear this ludicrous argument that the American media is anywhere in the proximity of "state-run" - that anyone who thinks that somehow a free press where individuals and corporations are free to publish what they like, even if you don't agree with it or find it useful, constitutes anything remotely similar to a situation like China or Iran or the USSR (all places where journalists are murdered or detained frequently) should be forced to actually experience that in the same way that socialists should be forced to actually experience socialism.

CB: Of the entites you mentioned, only the WSJ, the Washington Times, and the New York Post can be regarded as traditional media outlets, and OK, we'll add in the Economist. (The Weekly Standard and the NR are pretty much Web outlets now.) Of those, the only one that has significant influence with the bicoastal elite is the WSJ. None of those people will ever get within fifty feet of the Washington Times; if you mention the name to them, they'll hiss "Unification Church!" and that's the end of the discussion. As for the AEI and Heritage, well, the left has their own slate of think tanks, so that's a wash. And nobody outside of a shrinking cadre of the right-wing fringe takes Pat Robertson seriously. As for the Economist, it may be regarded as right-wing by European standards, but the last time I checked, it was a big advocate of strict global warming regulation.

Point: It's the Left that goes around complaining about how their First Amendment rights are under attack. Their contention is that criticism of them abridges their freedom of speech. The leftist philosophy towards the First Amendment is that it was never meant to protect the rights of all citizens; only a carefully screened media elite enjoy its protections. It's the left that keeps talking about how "mean-spirited" the Internet is, and how it needs to be regulated. (Well, except when it comes to porn; that's when the far right fringe jumps in. But the Left is perfectly happy to count them as allies on that. That ought to bother somebody, but it doesn't seem to.)

One more point: I claim that there is in fact one significant way in which the First Amendment rights of conservatives are significantly abridged in America today. It is this: leftist organizations have been enormously successful at co-mingling government funding with their partisan political projects, and at dodging prosecution for doing so. Labor unions and ACORN, to name two examples, have been getting away with this for decades. It's so common that it's accepted as a fait accompli by the general public, and the MSM helps cover it up. There is nothing comparable on the Right. That means that I am being compelled, by the authority of the state, to help pay for the publication and advocacy of opinions that I disagree with. I contend that that is a substantial, ongoing, violation of my First Amendment rights. I think Rand would agree with me on this; I know Jefferson would.

And Jody, many MSM people freely admit their bias in their coverage. Do I need to go dig up the quotes? Remember the journalist who predicted that the way the MSM forms and shapes the coverage would be worth 15 points to John Kerry? Well, he was right. Kerry was an awful candidate running against an incumbent President; in any other era, he would have lost in a landslide. Instead, he came within an eyelash of winning.

>>And Jody, many MSM people freely admit their bias in their coverage. Do I need to go dig up the quotes?

Brace yourself, Cousin Dave, for a facetious response.

YOU say they "freely" admit their bias. I think not! They have to pretend to vote commie, you see - otherwise the leftie cabal in charge of the US Press will nibble them to death!