David Broder incurs the wrath of the blogosphere with his Sunday Washington Post piece lamenting “a widespread loss of confidence in both the values of journalism and the economic viability of the news business.” Naturally, bloggers zero in on his disdain for…bloggers!
When the Internet opened the door to scores of “journalists” who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering, the bars were already down in many old-line media organizations. That is how it happened that old pros such as Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines got caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.
Nick Gillespie, theorizing that Broder was “auditioning for a lead in Grumpy Old Men III,” responds that “there’s little reason to believe that mainstream journalism is any more corrupt than it ever was. Indeed, the only thing that has probably changed is that it’s easier to get caught, which should be a good thing in anybody’s book.” He also gets in a solid parting shot:
Based on the number of outlets, the range of perspectives, the ease of access, you name it, this is the best damn time for journalism ever. Which isn’t to say its perfect. But it is a pretty crappy time to be a well-placed columnist, or editor, or publisher desperate to dictate the news cycle, what people are reading, and what people “should” be thinking.
Speaking of Broder, Josh Marshall refers to him as “a paragon of Washington’s establishment assumptions” in a post complaining of the lack of balance on the commentary panel on this Sunday’s Meet the Press. In addition to the “neutral” Broder, the show featured Bill Safire and Bob Novak, “two of the most prominent and conservative columnists in the country,” as well as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Of the last, says Marshall, “it’s probably fair to call her a liberal. But…she doesn’t play one on TV. She goes in for high-minded commentary, which is fine in itself but makes her little balance for Safire and Novak.” So where does that leave the ideological battle? According to Marshall, it’s “[t]wo against one — and the one has one arm tied, voluntarily, behind her [high-minded] back.”
James Lileks, meanwhile, wasn’t a big fan of Sunday’s New York Times Magazine story about bloggers. “Doing a story on blogging and putting Wonkette on the cover is like using Janine Garafalo [sic] to illustrate a story about the power of talk radio,” he says. “Sure, Limbaugh has better numbers, but what’s more compelling? A story about someone who attracts 20 million uninteresting people, or someone who attracts 100,000 people who are Just Like Us?” (We get what Lileks is going for, but his comparison does seem a little bit of a stretch.) He also uses the Times Magazine as a surrogate punching bag for high and mighty liberals everywhere, and he doesn’t spare the gory details:
The Sunday Times is the weekly sermon: let us reinforce your world view, your sense of belonging to the Thinking Class, the Special Ones. Let the Red Staters spend Sunday morning in itchy church clothes at Perkins, dumping syrup all over their pancakes and yelling at little Lurleen not to pour salt down her baby brother’s jumper; you’re in your elegant spare little apartment with a cup of coffee (frothed on top; sprinkle of nutmeg) and a pastry from that wonderful place around the corner (okay, it’s an Au Bon Pain – hell, they’re all Bon Pain now) and there’s some light jazz on the radio.
Hey, James, give us a break — we northeastern elitists are already frazzled enough from thinking about our PowerPoint presentations and rinsing our salad greens…
–Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is a writer at CJR Daily.