GOODY TWO SHOES: Idealized Image Vs. Rank Reality
In this week’s issue of Time magazine, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller answers 10 questions from readers, including:
Q: Why do you think the press gave the Bush Administration a free pass on the misleading statements it made to get us into the war in Iraq? Randal Davis, PORTLAND, ORE.
A: It was partly the insatiable desire for scoops people in the Administration were feeding about the potential threat in Iraq. But a lot of it was just that we floated along with the conventional wisdom, the worst enemy of journalism. [Emphasis, The Stiletto.]
Q: The Times had no problem leaking state secrets, claiming the truth required that they be published. Yet it had no qualms lying about the kidnapping of one of its reporters to protect his safety. What is the difference? Bob Dame CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.
A: The fact is, we sometimes withhold information from print either because we're convinced that publishing it would put lives at risk or to protect national security. We've done that not only in the case of [kidnapped reporter] David Rohde but other kidnappings as well. We've done it in the case of state secrets. But we can't surrender to the government all the decision-making power. [Emphasis, The Stiletto.]
Q: Do reporters avoid writing unflattering things about sources? Ray Gambel, NEW ORLEANS
A: There's no question that sources sometimes have interests aside from the truth when they talk to reporters. That's why reporters have to very aggressively report against their own theses and against their initial information. One of the most important disciplines in journalism is to challenge your working premises. [Emphasis, The Stiletto.]
Now, compare the boldfaced bits of Keller’s high-minded answers and to the boldfaced bits in this Gawker post about the Washington press corps - the folks who we rely on to keep a gimlet eye on the president and his administration – at an off-the-record (no interviewing, blogging or tweeting) Independence Day White House wingding that was “covered” by one lone pool reporter, the Baltimore Sun's Paul West:
These are the same people who just a week ago whining in the press briefing about Obama's malicious and dastardly attempts to "control the press." (Well, not the self-same people - we're not sure if Chip Reid and Helen Thomas, the primary antagonists in that exchange, were in attendance.) …
West was ushered in by White House staffers for a mere 40 minutes, so he could record the president's remarks. He was kept in a pen so that he wouldn't run amok and interview someone. He shouted questions at Obama as he worked the rope line, which the president ignored. Then he was taken away. West wrote up his blindered account of the party and then e-mailed it to the White House press corps, many of whom were actually at the party, outside of the pen, hanging out with all the other guests. And then, because they had temporarily signed away the right to do their jobs in exchange for facetime with staffers, a few cold Stoudt's American Pale Ales, and some corn on the cob, their news organizations picked up that pool report and used it to tell their readers what happened at the party. This is how the press covers the White House. …
What doesn't make sense, at all, is why a group of reporters who have recently begun clinging to the notion that they are independent of Washington's clubby morass of back-scratching self-congratulation would agree to attend an off-the-record party at the White House while one of their own is walled off in a pen like some forlorn scapegoat, doing the job they're supposed to be doing.
Bet the sky in Kellerland is always blue, and there are butterflies flitting amongst the fragrant blooms. In the real world, journos aspire to the plush perquisites that accrue to elites by dint of position or pocketbook. Thus, instead of keeping a professional distance to ensure their objectivity, journos don’t miss an opportunity for a play date with the folks they cover, if only to feed their delusions of entitlement.
Comments