Bart: Are journalists missing in action?
Mon Mar 10, 2:18 AM ET
By Peter Bart, Variety Editor-in-Chief
HOLLYWOOD - I like to think I read the newspapers carefully and keep up with TV news, but lately I've become fretful about those stories I've missed. Or think I've missed.
I've read many stories quoting the wisdom of stock analysts as they've hyped their various "hot companies," but somehow never saw pieces revealing their conflicts of interest. Until the regulators stepped in, that is.
I used to read all those cover stories in business magazines heralding the genius of Kenneth Lay and Dennis Koslowski, but missed the pieces advising investors that they also happened to be crooks.
More urgently, while I read accounts during the election campaign describing George W. Bush as a calm, middle-of-the-road conservative and consensus builder, I somehow missed those stories suggesting that he would be the most radical right-wing president in American history.
The press kept telling me what a great guy W was, so why has Mr. Nice Guy alienated every ally in the world?
There are explanations for these "misses," to be sure. The analysts enjoyed great press because they were so deliciously accessible. Why settle for a "no comment" from a gruff CEO when an analyst would eagerly volunteer an opinion, provided he had something to gain from it?
The journalistic habit of rallying behind anything that's "hot" also tilted coverage of the Enrons and Tycos. "Hot" numbers triggered "hot" stories. When Gerald Levin of AOL Time Warner promised that his company would double in size every three years, the press passed it on breathlessly. After all, it's a CEO talking.
Which brings us back to the serious stuff. With our soldiers marching into combat, it would be nice to have some assurance that we'll be given credible reports about the war and how it resonates around the world.
Are these expectations realistic?
Well, thus far we've been told that Iraq (news - web sites) has provided crucial aid to Al Qaeda. OK. Iraq's weapons pose an imminent threat to the world. OK. Post-Hussein, a democratic Iraq will represent a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. Cool.
Now how about the other side? Where is that magic mix of interpretive journalism that lends both vitality and credibility to a free press?
Well, let's go back to the dawning of the W era. Scan the accounts of newspapers across the country and you elicit a picture of the president we thought we elected. He was a president bent on making "remarkably centrist appointments," said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He was a practitioner of "pragmatic, centrist politics," said the St. Paul Pioneer Press. He was a man who said, "I was bipartisan before bipartisan was cool," according to the Baltimore Sun.
The New York Times told us that the new president, in forming his Cabinet, was desperate to find "at least one Democrat" -- an instinct that "has echoes of John F. Kennedy." Dick Cheney (news - web sites) was quoted by the Times as saying that the election put a "special burden" on the President "to work on a bipartisan basis and in a cooperative spirit."
Notice, the most common word describing the new Bush presidency was "centrist." Well, if George W. Bush is a centrist, then Attila the Hun was a dangerous lefty.
Ask working journalists about all this and they'll explain their woes in reporting on the presidency. TV newsmen tell you their staffs have been eviscerated by the number crunchers.
Some also hint there's been a subtle shift to the right as a result of the ascension of Fox News. Magazine writers complain about corporate constraints at a time when ad revenues are plunging. The right is very well organized, they say, and not inhibited about complaining.
Probably there's a germ of truth in all these explanations. The bottom line, however, is that journalists already seem to be missing in action.
And the war hasn't even started yet.
story.news.yahoo.com |
