 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Membership
|
De-certifying 'De-Certifying the Press'Note: Jay Rosen, at PressThink, an advocate for journalism, is again expressing his honest concern about attempts by President George W. Bush's administration to challenge press coverage. He calls his essay "De-Certifying the Press, Continued", so we feel obliged, yet again, to help uncover the best method for assuring both healthy press coverage of the President and removing any need to "de-certify". Bush's attempts to decertify misbehaving press are like chemotherapy. Isn't giving poison to people wrong? Well, yes, but if a measured dose kills the disease and the patient returns to health, in chemo it can be justified. So is Bush giving chemotherapy to journalism? Jay writes: There's a difference between going around the press in an effort to avoid troublesome questions, and trying to unseat the idea that these[my emphasis] people, professional journalists assigned to cover politics, have a legitimate role to play in our politics.Does the adjective "these" apply to all the press? Or does it to those whose tenuous grasp on a prestigious position in the spotlight (or producers just behind it) depends on differenting themselves from the pack to maintain their place. Consider this: absolutely nothing in journalistic practice justifies preconceiving the notion to cast the net widely across the United States prior to Bush's inauguration to juxtapose the ceremony on the network news with the funeral of a American soldier killed in Iraq. What is different today, is that when the New York Times recasts its news, primary source material links ripple through the blogs to show that the Old Gray Lady's slip is showing. When you challenge Bush, you forget that, technologically, this is the first time the President can challenge the small circle of "professionals", not necessarily to behave, but to cut some of the obvious crap, because evidence is out that the public can understand. Jay raises the alarm when he writes: There is no Fourth Estate, says the Bush Thesis. might more accurately say, "There is no Fourth Estate, says Jay Rosen's Bush Thesis." It's only a thesis, and it's Jay's. He presents as evidence, "As for journalists, 'they don't represent the public any more than other people do,' according to Chief of Staff Andrew Card." I have repeatedly said, "'Journalist' is an earned accolade." which is the same thing Card said, but I'm not accused of undermining journalism. Journalists are not institutionally special; they are special when their reporting stands up in the crucible of examination. When Jay says, "Of course the whole idea of having a White House press corps is that the reporters in it do represent the American public's common interest in seeing executive power questioned, monitored, examined, explained.", he can't seem to consider that the current crop of candidates might not be doing its job. I have stood before Presidents, senators, members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, and even presidential press secretaries, to ask hard questions that, with some obvious exceptions, were treated squarely, fairly, openly, and thoroughly. I do not expect this to change. If, the chemotherapy continues beyond curing the disease, then I'll be first in line to help Jay write the column. Meanwhile, I'm with Howard Kurtz. Journalism, no less than the troubles of academia, is at greater risk from the political correctness that, in silence, tolerates poor work. [Macro error: Can't find a sub-table named "commentIt".]
|
|
||
|
