Behind the News
Real Journalism
What a difference the DNA makes
By Brent Cunningham Fri 11 Jul 2008 12:57 PMToday’s front-page piece in The New York Times about Congressman Charlie Rangel’s rent-control boondoggle—he has four rent-controlled apartments in Manhattan, including one that serves as a campaign office—is a clear illustration of what separates a real journalist from the thousands of pretenders who take great pleasure in denigrating the embattled MSM.
The very existence of the piece makes the case. We don’t typically find such stories on blogs, in part because most “citizen journalists” don’t have a professional journalist’s DNA. They too often pursue personal agendas, or partisan ones. There is evidence that this is changing—the citizen journalists at places like Off the Bus and the Chi-Town Daily News strive for journalism that is intellectually honest—and that is a welcome change indeed. Journalism—however flawed—is built upon the ideas that public servants should be held to a higher standard, that the powerful must be checked when they abuse that power, that the public has a right to information that the powerful would rather keep hidden. The Times is branded a “liberal” newspaper by the right, and it has endorsed Rangel, a liberal lawmaker, in the past. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reporter who wrote today’s exposé actually agrees with most of Rangel’s positions on key issues. But that’s the point. The bias, ultimately, is to the story, not the ideology.
Yes, there are real journalists beyond the mainstream media. But they are still extreme exceptions among all the “media revolutionaries.” This is a question of function, not of form—and as the business of journalism continues its uneven and unsettling transition, it is crucial that we find ways to ensure that journalism’s supreme function takes root in whatever forms evolve.
CJR
Chuck Simmins![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Sat 12 Jul 2008 09:43 PMI'm not sure just how you decided that blogs don't do journalism equal to the NY Time's piece on Rangel.
Little Green Footballs discovered the TANG memo forgeries, and ended the career of Dan Rather.
Confederate Yankee was responsible for outing AP's use of a fictitious police officer in Iraq as a source.
Blogs reported the Abu Ghraib scandal months before the Times.
My blog alone covered the unique and unprecedented generosity of the American people after the tsunami in South Asia.
It is blogs that are publishing the translated papers from Saddam's regime. It is blogs that are covering the repression and violence in Yemen.
Blog content coverage of 9/11 was thought important enough that the Smithsonian added it to their collection.
Blogs will not replace good newspapers, only lazy ones.
Josh Young![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Mon 14 Jul 2008 01:45 AM"Real Journalism"? I mean, really? Isn't this just a little...oh...2004? This thing is fairly dripping with disdain. More than anything, it's just annoying. Seriously, the this post basically claims that blogs with ideologies other than neutrality are intellectually dishonest.
(1) It's just flat-out wrong to claim that a blog couldn't have been the source of the Rangel piece. The blog may just have been a conservative one--that's all. Sure, it's a different ethic, a "partisan" one instead of a "neutral" one. And maybe the neutral one is better (though it, at the very least, has its well documented problems), but it's not better in the sense that only it could have called Rangel to the carpet for sleazy rent-control deals.
(2) Also, isn't this story a little weak for all the weight being foisted on it? Take the line, "Journalism...is built upon the ideas that public servants should be held to a higher standard, that the powerful must be checked when they abuse that power, that the public has a right to information that the powerful would rather keep hidden." This wasn't Watergate. This wasn't bad war intelligence. It was Charlie Rangel doing something obviously incredibly stupid. The Times deserves credit for printing it, sure, but let's be real--it's not exactly a historical example of speaking truth to power.
It would be nice if CJR online had more to offer than pretty bald revanchism. It's just not that useful.
carolers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Mon 14 Jul 2008 01:45 PMIf this story is the kind of story we want to hold out as all that's good about MSM, then we all ought to be very afraid.
The story was full of holes; rife with the insinuation of wrongdoing, yet proved none; downplayed actual facts in favor of pronouncements from the ubiquitous unnamed "state officials and city housing experts" and was way overplayed on the Web site.
It was a "gotcha" story that really didn't get anybody. It was a story that worked too hard to make its case and ultimately didn't. Frankly, I was surprised that the Times ran with the story in the shape it was in.
And what exactly did the Times reporter do that a blogger couldn't or wouldn't have done? Pick up a phone? Peruse public records? Confront a public official on the streets? I'm sorry, but I'm missing the magic.
Let's not pretend that the MSM is holier than the blogosphere when the NYT puts this kind of half effort out there.
The only thing this story proved is that journalistic laziness runs in all circles.
BX9438Q![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Mon 14 Jul 2008 02:02 PMI suppose this will never end, but good point. I remember they did this back with Jeff Gannon and his softball questions. And a whole bunch of mainstream journalist tripped all over themselves to speak about how that's not what "real journalists do." Oh God. Real journalists do that all the time. Real journalists are often bad journalists. I mean, great, the Rangel story was good journalism, but I don't think this really has much to do with the future of journalism.
Yes, we don’t typically find such stories on blogs, but we don't typically find such stories in the Washignton Post, either.