
For a profession whose entire raison d’être is communication, American journalists sure have done a lousy job of explaining why the slow-motion disintegration of the business model upon which their livelihoods have depended for the past three hundred years might have significant negative consequences for the country. The arguments one hears tend to sound like high-school civics lessons that people automatically tune out. And those are from the serious journalists. The unserious ones—the ones whose ranks are booming—present a daily argument for saying good riddance to newspapers and the like—with the Murdoch empire’s recent phone-hacking scandal being only the most gruesome.
Ironically—and apparently somehow below the radar of most journalists in America—the profession was recently blessed with what could have been, and still might be, the most effective propaganda vehicle for the societal significance of journalism I could imagine. His name is Mikael Blomkvist, and the paunchy, forty-year-old, lady-killing, black-coffee-and-bourbon swizzling, cigarette-smoking, crusading, feminist, Swedish journalist just happens to be the hero of perhaps the best-selling book series in the world. The late Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy—The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest—have already sold upward of fifty million copies worldwide, and spawned three pretty decent Swedish films. MGM’s release, over Christmas, of David Fincher’s $100 million Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, with yes, James Bond (Daniel Craig) playing Blomkvist, is no doubt driving those numbers even higher.
True, just like Mr. “Shaken, Not Stirred,” Blomkvist is too good to be true. He works for Millennium, a profitable, do-good, investigative business magazine of which he is part owner and editor that has no imaginable analog in American journalism. (It is modeled after the tiny anti-racist magazine, Expo, that Larsson helped found in 1995 and for which he continued to labor until his fatal heart attack in November 2004 at age fifty, just before the publication of Dragon Tattoo.)
Blomkvist, therefore, lives and works in a journalistic environment about as far as possible from the kind of politics-as-entertainment/entertainment-as-politics that dominates American mainstream news—particularly business news, where Larsson’s billionaire villains would, until very recently, likely have been treated as akin to super-heroes. As the business writer Chrystia Freeland has mused, “You don’t have to be a fictional Scandinavian social democrat to wish that business journalism in the United States was more about afflicting the comfortable and less about cozying up to them.” But if highbrow American journalists would look up from their decaf soy lattés, they might find much to cheer, or at least to ponder, in Larsson’s trilogy. For in addition to earning its bona fides as a first-rate, albeit decidedly implausible, murder mystery series, it also is among the most nuanced and thorough fictional demonstrations ever written of the importance of journalism to a democratic society.
It’s true that Larsson cheats. Not only do women fall in love with Blomkvist too easily, but the idea that the Robin to his Batman is the magical “Girl” with not only a generous set of tattoos but also a photographic memory and the ability to hack into any computer system in the world, is not bloody likely either. Her hacking talents—not unlike, come to think of it, those of the Murdoch cretins but in this case used only for good—make it possible for Blomkvist to become privy to all sorts of secrets that would elude a mere mortal journalist. What’s more, he becomes so personally involved in the story that he ends up caring far more about the fate of the individuals he is reporting on than about his responsibility to publish anything approaching “the whole truth.” Near the end of Dragon Tattoo, when Blomkvist finally finds the object of his frenetic search, he explains to her that she has no need to fear exposure: “I’m not thinking of exposing you. I’ve already breached so many rules of professional conduct in this whole dismal mess that the Journalists’ Association would undoubtedly expel me if they knew about it…. One more won’t make any difference.”

I believe the reason we haven't seen an argument for "the books’ value as illustrations of both the difficulties and the importance of the journalistic profession" is because it's a pretty weak argument. Blomkvist is a failure as a journalist as the first book opens. He succeeds via illegal means — through the talents of a gifted hacker named Salander who has a photographic memory and other superhuman intellectual powers. It's tricky to celebrate these books/movies as great PR for journalism because they are fraught with ethical problems. We shouldn't hack into the hard drives of suspicious characters. Or their cell phones, as I used to think everyone knew. I don't think readers/viewers of the Dragon Tattoo franchise walk away with admiration of journalists and journalism so much as they do with adoration of Salander the Superhacker Feminist Vigilante. Alas, she is pure fantasy.
#1 Posted by Katherine Reed, CJR on Wed 4 Jan 2012 at 02:06 PM
I thought that the remarkable thing about Swedish journalism from the first book was that it has a professional organization much as a legal bar association in that profession. In the first book it dealt with ethical issues as I remember.
#2 Posted by Pete Skiba, CJR on Wed 4 Jan 2012 at 03:50 PM
Her hacking talents—not unlike, come to think of it, those of the Murdoch cretins but in this case used only for good—make it possible for Blomkvist to become privy to all sorts of secrets that would elude a mere mortal journalist.
Perhaps a little more consistent metaphor isn't Murdoch but Wikileaks...except, once again, the journalist gets a free ride.
#3 Posted by Larry Darnell, CJR on Wed 4 Jan 2012 at 07:54 PM
This retired newsman recently started subscribing to the WSJ, largely because they offered a subscription deal I couldn't refuse. I mention this only to segue into the question of book reviews in newspapers (or, more precisely, the paucity of same) mentioned in Alterman's column. I have been much impressed by the book reviewing in the WSJ, Every day a book review in the editorial section (frequently intended to make an editorial point, but so what) plus a weekly run down of books seemingly tailored to my interests. They somehow have my reading-preference profile down pat even though I'm WAY out of step with their editorial worldview. WSJ in my opinion outflanks The NYT's Review of Books by being lean and mean whereas the NYT is loaded with reviews they are obligated to write because they have a free-standing magazine to fill every week (sort of like cable news networks having to fill a 24-hour news hole every day) and just because they are -- after all -- THE NEW YORK TIMES. Nothing wrong with that, either.
I recently scored a reviewing gig for our local weekly newspaper which regularly reviews numerous books, some of national import as well as those written on local subjects by local authors. One need only to add a journal or two like The New York Review of Books to this mix to have a very good handle on what's going on out there in the book publishing sphere. I quite understand where Mr Alterman is coming from in his lament for the erosion of feature material in today's newspapers, but it seems to me that book reviews are not -- so far, at least -- the most endangered species thereof.
#4 Posted by Art Kane, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 05:26 PM
I almost cried while reading "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest," in which the character Erika Berger, a female editor of a large daily newspaper, confronts her CFO. She reminds him that cutting staff would hurt the newspaper's capability, therefore reducing its size and advertising revenue. They effectively tell her "not to worry her pretty little head" about it. How many times have we gone through that dance?
What I really took away from the first book was an ethical battle between hackers and journalists. Larsson makes the case that traditional journalists have checks and balances in place. Hackers like Anonymous do not. While his story does demonstrate the necessity of computer espionage regarding crimes against people across international lines, one could take away from the books that sort of thing has more of a place in law enforcement rather than journalism. This was before the British phone hacking scandal.
#5 Posted by Melissa Bower, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 11:38 AM
Not exactly relevant to article but, why a flat-abs Hollywood hunk when a Kenneth Branagh with a few added lbs would have perfectly fit the bill?
#6 Posted by ed parolini, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 04:43 PM
Enjoyed the trilogy, and the Swedish films, and this article. I do find it interesting that virtually nobody seems to comment on the huge and obvious plot hole in book 1. There are over 40 framed flowers, sent annually to Mr. Vanger since the 60's. The novel is set in the early 2000's. Even the most cautious sender 20-40 years ago (avoiding, e.g., fingerprints) would not have had the notion of avoiding deposits containing DNA, which even a drop of sweat or brushing against the frame would have left behind. With 40 frames, the flowers themselves and a week at a 2000's era lab, Vanger (or Blomkvist, in his stead) would have known that the sender was not only related to him at a certain distance (which he already suspected), but would have known that person was female. If the packages also contained DNA from the confederate (very likely), he would have known the relation and that she was female.
Samples of DNA from a few more Vanger relatives (easy enough to pick up from those on the island and in boardrooms, from the trash, basic detective work), and their identity would have easily been pinpointed by elimination.
It is curious that in all that, Vanger and Blomkvist seem to live in a world where modern DNA testing does not exist. And yet Vanger, as a man with great resources, could have easily hired such a testing lab, and both, but especially Blomkvist, would have been well aware of DNA science.
I'm just saying ...
#7 Posted by drinkof, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 09:31 AM
One extra bit of irony in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" title... The dynamic duo of this series -- combining journalism skills with illegal technology and "research" skills -- has something in common with a fictional character of 70 years ago, the original Green Hornet radio series, in which a newspaper publisher, frustrated with the ability of editorials to clean up the town, took to vigilante tactics to not only uncover facts, but intimidate, trick and frame the bad guys... sometimes with unknowing help from the paper's reporting staff.
(Not to be confused with the less journalistic and more kung-fulish TV series or the 2011 film, which features a journalism and criminology graduate seeking work as a secretarial temp and a drunken buffoon becoming publisher.)
http://jheroes.com/2011/01/26/the-hornets-nest-was-a-newspaper/
#8 Posted by Bob Stepno, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 07:58 PM
i'm so agree with all this stuff, prof Alterman! i'm from italy, journalist as well. i first read Blomqvist chapter 1 after having passed the professional exam, asbolutely by chance, and I remember i thought: "I should have read it before the exam!". anyway. moreover, i think that italian journalism environment is more similar to the swedish one than to the US way of working...
#9 Posted by giulia mietta, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 03:09 AM
It's stupid exercises like this that make a J-school degree unnecessary, in "old school" industry and today.
#10 Posted by Karen Smith, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 07:55 PM