Dan Kennedy objects to my writing a “Russert Watch” column for CJR online on the ground that I support Barack Obama (which I do).
His objection is incoherent. “It becomes much harder to evaluate someone honestly once you’ve identified yourself as a backer,” Kennedy writes. Why? He doesn’t object to the content of my first column itself. In fact, he mentions only one of my Russert criticisms—and agrees with it. So what’s the beef?
Anyway, I’m not writing a column on Obama, I’m writing a column on Tim Russert. I’ve been writing about Russert for a decade or so. I was writing about him—critically, in the main—when I’d never heard of Barack Obama. I’ll write straight about Russert whatever his subject. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, or if Obama is, I’ll still treat him straight. If you think I get Russert wrong, criticize me for that. (In truth, as Kennedy doesn’t note, I began the first column with a tip of the hat to Russert.)
There’s an absurd notion abroad in the land that criticism on the part of a self-acknowledged partisan deserves to be discarded automatically on the ground that it’s, well, partisan. It crops up all the time in disingenuous journalism. “That charge is political” substitutes for “that charge is erroneous.” The metadiscussion stands in for the evaluation of the value of the truth in the critique.
If everyone who declares a political interest is morally bound to clam up in public, then criticism is neutered—just what we don’t need any more of in our public life, says this writer-citizen-professor- opinionator.
We invite comments and discussion.
Sorry, but Todd Gitlin's description of Russert's question as "disingenous slime" is undercut by Gitlin's acknowledgement that he supports Obama. I can't defend the Russert error about the National Anthem, but the gist of the question is fair. I am taking on faith that "many Democrats" are worried about the issue. It's fair to ask questions like this as one of a series of questions to campaign strategists. I would prefer more discussion of major public issues rather than campaign tactics, but having a writer who supports a particular candidate attack as "slime" a legitimate question critical of that candidate detracts from the dialogue about good media coverage.
Ted Gest
Washington, D.C.
Posted by Ted Gest
on Wed 23 Apr 2008 at 12:28 PM
This is another part of journalistic mythology (along with "readers like moronic puns") that I don't get.
I don't think it makes it harder to be honest once you are identified as being partisan. It just makes it harder to pretend you are neutral, which no one believes anyway.
Why old school journalists think that hiding one's sympathies is a preferable situation, I don't know.
Better just to let everyone know what you think and judge your writing.
Posted by Oran Kelley
on Wed 23 Apr 2008 at 12:32 PM
Dan Kennedy is an intelligent man, but his objection has a strangely pro forma feel. The dishonest critics out there are the ones who attempt to conceal their agendas. At its most ludicrous, this can be seen in the Roger Ailes Fox News slogan, "fair and balanced" and Ailes's straight-faced assertion that he is restoring objectivity to the political debate. In its most subtle, as I've commented elsewhere, it is Howard Kurtz's pretense of objectivity despite a pattern of minimizing Republican crimes and misdemeanors and playing up Democratic ones (as well as Kurtz's close ties to the Republican party). Russert's biases are palpable although undeclared. Todd Gitlin, an estimable commentator, has a right if not a duty to underline them, and his admission of support for Obama is a mark in his favor. Transparency is the issue here, and Gitlin is strong and confident and honest enough not to conceal his core convictions. Critique his specific points and not his right to make them.
Posted by JasonC
on Wed 23 Apr 2008 at 12:43 PM
Seems like Gitlin gets defensive, calling Kennedy's criticism "incoherent." Journalists are supposed to be for transparency. So where's Gitlin's beef with Kennedy?
On the other hand, for instance, wouldn't Gitlin, as a journalist, like presidential candidates to disclose if they have lobbiests advising their campaign or not. It's the same situation; and readers/voters don't want to be misled.
Posted by marc
on Wed 23 Apr 2008 at 07:10 PM
But Marc, this doesn't seem to be an issue of transparency. Gitlin isn't hiding his preference for Obama. Even Kennedy says that Gitlin announced it publicly back in February. Nor does Kennedy point out any factual error Gitlin has made in his criticisms of Russert. He just says that Gitlin has less standing to criticize Russert because of his support for Obama--which doesn't seem terribly logical to me. Is Kennedy saying that journalists should hide their political preferences? Or have none? The latter is obviously impractical, while the former would be much worse, I think, than transparency.
Posted by kweberlit
on Thu 24 Apr 2008 at 11:00 AM
Am I the only one who likes to know the bias of people commenting on the news? My politics align closely with Mr. Gitlin's, yet I appreciate FoxNews and CBN because I know what their agendas are. I don't know Russert's intentions, but he, like Charles Gibson, presents his viewpoint as "fact" rather than as opinion. Conversely, Gitlin makes it clear he's expressing an opinion from a liberal viewpoint. I don't know what the fuss is about.
Posted by Ken Bilderback
on Thu 24 Apr 2008 at 11:43 AM
If you go to journalism school, they teach that you should never reveal your endorsement for a political candidate. You keep your voting habits to yourself. The reason: If you tell people your voting for Obama, for instance, a portion of the audience will discredit everything you say about Obama and Obama's opponents because there is a "conflict of interest." Also, when a writer knows the audience is aware of his allegiances, that makes the writer tip-toe around the positive aspects of his candidate, so as not to be an obvious tool bag. If the writer never made a public endorsement of a candidate, then he could write more freely, covering the issues as honestly as possible, with less fear of being labeled a tool bag. Knowing a media producer's presidential pick distorts the coverage of a presidential election.
The fact is, this guy, Gitlin came onto this beat without telling his audience beforehand that he endorsed Obama. Someone had to investigate to discover that.
Gitlin thinks that he is so much of an intellectual that he rises above these standards of objectivity in journalism.
Posted by marc
on Thu 24 Apr 2008 at 05:52 PM