Pincus: A new kind of courage is needed in journalism

[Rose Siding]

Courage in journalism today takes all the obvious, traditional forms -- reporting from a war zone or from a totalitarian country where a reporter's life or safety are issues. In Washington, D.C., where I work, it's a far less dramatic form of courage if a journalist stands up to a government official or a politician who he or she has reason to believe is not telling the truth or living up to his or her responsibilities.

But I believe a new kind of courage is needed in journalism in this age of instant news, instant analysis, and therefore instant opinions. It also happens to be a time of government by public relations and news stories based on prepared texts and prepared events or responses. Therefore, this is the time for reporters and editors, whether from the mainstream media or blogosphere, to pause before responding to the latest bulletin, prepared event, or the most recent statement or backgrounder, whether from the White House or the Democratic or Republican leadership on Capitol Hill......

A new element of courage in journalism would be for editors and reporters to decide not to cover the President's statements when he -- or any public figure -- repeats essentially what he or she has said before. The Bush team also has brought forward another totally PR gimmick: The President stands before a background that highlights the key words of his daily message. This tactic serves only to reinforce that what's going on is public relations -- not governing. Journalistic courage should include the refusal to publish in a newspaper or carry on a TV or radio news show any statements made by the President or any other government official that are designed solely as a public relations tool, offering no new or valuable information to the public.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00102


Walter Pincus reports on national security issues for The Washington Post.

[RagingInMiami]

1. You get a reporter with courage who stands up to the administration

Chances are, he will reassigned to another beat.

[PATRICK]

2. They will, just in time

for a fair-minded non-threatening, honest Democratic majority or president. Plenty of courage on the way to ignore or trash people who will do the "courageous" journalist no harm as the new government tries to repair the damage done by servile, eager propaganda. Furthermore, well, they will be Democrats, not all that great for the corporate bottom line, people the journalists have been willingly conditioned or inclined to despise.

I expect this kind of timely courage to occur the day after the GOP downfall, just as the Venezuelan press of the privileged classes has shone like a light on a hill as they battle heroically the big bad populist strongma who will not arrest or shoot them like their own heroes would.

If this sudden revelation is the great stroke of wise courage- to be greeted by gales of black laughter from the ghosts of the murdered and defamed and the dead patriarchs of our raped institutions- a better prescription to the washington lackey corps would be this- Resign. Check into an asylum while you still have millions socked away to spend on medical care. Enter monasteries. Enlist. Go back to school. Bring out ALL the suppressed stories to add to full and constant repentance. Give back your salaries. Turn yourselves into whatever just court is left to be discovered.

Many opportunities not to be complicit have passed. Pleading stupid is not even a good baby step to take advantage of another. The time is now. It is not to wonder, but to act. Save your apologies for later if you can act now.

[Hidden Stillness]

3. Great Statement of the Current Situation

This is actually a really great column, and anyone interested should go to the complete version from the link, where it is called "Fighting back against the PR presidency," print it up, and really read it. It is all about the current problem, very succinctly put, of the managed, fake-presentation, consulted Presidency, where you cannot for the life of you, get to the truth behind the curtain. A script is followed, with backdrops, talking points, refusal to answer spontaneous questions, TV-production choreography right down to the waves to reporters...until it drives us all insane. It is a way of total censorship, while pretending not to censor, while pretending even to be open and accessable to the media by appearing, but then sticking to the prearranged script. Censorship of the answers to questions, merely by covering it up with something else.

The "courage" it takes, as Pincus explains, is not that of facing life-and-death threat, but of just going against the passive/"entertaining" media routine; causing trouble and demanding an answer, rather than everyone just grinning along and trivializing everything, on behalf of the corporate sponsor-Republican Party collusion. It is the courage of risking a smear against you, pressure from sponsors and executives, being fired. Remember that the Bush-evaded-National-Guard document was authentic, and proved to be so by producer Mary Mapes, who reproduced its characteristics on an old electric typewriter. They, right up to Dan Rather, were all destroyed by a cowardly CBS anyway, throwing them all to the wolves to "save" the larger corporation.

It takes courage to want to dump the brainless, sales pitch trivia and pre-packaged pseudo-"news" stories, for real news with background, have the ratings go down, (for example), and with management pressure against you, keep to it because it was worth doing.

I used to think that all the "poor" reporters were being ordered to cover the fluff and slant everything completely toward Republicans and corporations, and how miserable they must be, until I heard a few comments from some of them over the years on talk shows, etc., and realized that this was a totally new and fake type of "reporter" here, with no journalistic or even general writing background, and sometimes a shocking stupidity about the news itself. They are rich people with media connections, more concerned about their stocks and how they are doing, than with "Social Security, whatever that is." I happened to catch the Nancy Grace show tonight (Friday), with a segment on the Valerie Plame lawsuit against Cheney, Libby, Rove, etc., for destroying her career and committing a Federal crime--as they did--and although I generally like Nancy Grace, this whole segment was manipulated right from the start. A Republican operative from the Moonie Times was giving commentary on the case, a caller who asked stupidly if they had "a book deal," (as if that "wisely" uncovered "the real motive"--when exposing an active CIA agent is an inpeachable offense; not tricky here) had Grace laughing, and it completely derailed the whole coverage, as it now became a smear against Plame and Wilson for their "greedy motives." There was no excuse for this disgusting treatment, and "pressure" from anywhere does not explain it; I believe Nancy Grace may be the highest-rated of the time-slot. This was all her own doing, and I believe it is actually because she is so ignorant of the current news.

These media types are themselves to blame for the situation as much as anyone or anything else. None has the courage to even stand alone and ask a tough question, and if they did, they would not only not be hated by the American people, they would be cheered, the whole neo-con house of cards would fall, and real change and reparation could finally come--but they are all so corporate, so conforming, so cowardly. They only show any guts, after someone else has done it first--witness the en-masse discovery that there is global warming, after Al Gore took the attacks. It reminds me of the great old quote by Orson Welles, on the shameful silence of celebrities during the McCarthy era, when people were being slandered and their careers ruined, by the "Red" accusations, etc., celebrities who never fought back against the tactics, or defended innocent people as they were being ruined, etc. Welles commented that it was so shameful, the cowardly silence, by rich, comfortable celebrities, "and it was not even to save our lives, it was to save our swimming pools." When people will not stand up bravely to fight for the good, and for those who cannot fight for themselves, and they will not, not because there was any mortal threat, but just to selfishly protect or even advance their own overpaid careers, then they are as much to blame as the corporation putting on the lie-campaign.

[applegrove]

4. Thank you.