A Moth Who Just Wants to Share Your Light

by Eric Martin

Andrew Sullivan is highly quotable in response to David Brooks' gripes about the Rolling Stone story that played a part in the sacking of General McChrystal:

David Brooks writes the following sentence today:

The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters.

Like David, I am privileged in many ways to be able to meet and talk to a lot of powerful figures. David and I have been at many functions of this sort together, but I have to say I disagree. These interactions are the least interesting part of my job, and often the most misleading. Every now and then, you discover a nugget that adds something. But in general, you get the schtick and spin, larded with a few anecdotes to make you feel flattered to be included in the salons of power. And what still amazes me is how deferent most of even the A-list journos are (with a few glorious exceptions). In fact, the definition of an A-list journalist in Washington is the person who is chummiest and closest to the people they cover. They have risen to the top in part because they know what questions the powerful really don't want to answer - and decide not to ask them.

This is the most extreme when it comes to senior members of the military, where cults of personality by consummate operators, like the crashing bore, David Petraeus, create media narratives where reality is far less salient than spin. And so a great deal of the coverage is really about how plugged in the journalist is, and a lot of it is directed at his peers, whose approval he craves far more than he does his readers' or viewers'. The notion that we hacks should be instinctually hostile to the powerful, blunt in our questions, unsparing in our challenges, rude in our inquiries, and uninterested in getting to know anyone in power - that we should be much more skeptical precisely because we are so close - this seems almost archaic in late-imperial DC. In my view, that's why the public has come to despise the press in a populist age. Because the public rightly sees us as part of the establishment problem, not a means to its accountability. (One reason the United States so easily became a nation of torture, for example, is because Washington journalists, again with certain glorious exceptions, could not bring themselves to think of their friends and sources as war criminals.)

Now, of course, in the real world, some messiness is essential. Beat reporters cannot afford to freeze off all access with constant embarrassing truth-telling. But their aim should always be truth-telling as much as possible - not quick-hit Politico-style scooplets masking a deeper deference. My view is that these days too often it isn't, especially if it requires a reporter bucking the conventional wisdom - the Iraq surge worked! Petraeus is God! McChrystal is a genius! 

As Jeffrey Goldberg might boast, most of our leading journalists have been "toilet trained" in the norms of establishment journalism, and the extreme of deference journalists are expected to show to their subjects.  Amazingly, Goldberg thinks this is a good thing.

Comments

[Mike Schilling]

That is, if Hastings had simply made stuff up a la Kristol or Will, Brooks would have had no problem with him. Unforgivably, though, he told the truth.

[Uncertainty Vice Principal]

I've been reading all over the blogosphere how conservative pundit-journalists don't want anything but softball questions lobbed at elected officials and other authority figures, and how horrified they all are at the idea of someone being an aggressive, adversarial reporter.

This is true-- as long as the subject of the questions is also conservative. Watch what happens however when some insanely aggressive right wing "reporter" dresses up and does a "sting" on ACORN offices, or follows some Democratic member of Congress down the street yelling right wing accusations couched as if questions.

The conservative pundits don't seem to mind that nearly as much.

If you doubt that this is true of people like Goldberg, bear in mind that the person that he and the others are defending in this one is Matt Drudge.

Not only do these Beltway conservatives not mind Matt Drudge's version of sleazy, aggressive take downs, they think that he should be protected from any criticism for it.

Don't ever try to find logic or consistency in Republicans, you'll drive yourself nuts. They've become utterly without principles, and will say anything, including the opposite of what they said during the last Presidency, as long as it bolsters Republicans and damages Democrats.

[Slartibartfast]

As Jeffrey Goldberg might boast, most of our leading journalists have been "toilet trained" in the norms of establishment journalism

This just points back to the same Sullivan article, Eric. Did you mean to do that, and if so, why does "toilet trained" point there?

[Eric Martin]

Fixed slarti.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh! Thanks. Not completely unrelated:

After Ta-Nehisi, and Ambinder (and Ross Douthat, for that matter) pointed out that I was wrong about Weigel's reporting, I realized that, yes, I was wrong. Also, I subsequently had a very interesting and illuminating conversation with Weigel about this brouhaha, and, the conversation swayed me to believe -- as did his now-posted apology/explanation on Big Journalism -- that Weigel is a good reporter who did something boneheaded.

[Eric Martin]

No, but Goldberg's clarification does little to address the "toilet trained" aspect of his criticism - namely that unruly bloggers don't understand the rules of the road.

In general, the rules themselves are corrupted, and strict adherence to them (rather than a more robust journalistic ethos) is the problem. Not a couple of off color remarks about the people you're covering (which, ironically, doesn't get people in trouble if they refer to Hillary C as a "bitch" or Elana Kagan as a "prostitute" - that's cool because the village respects that. Drudge, on the other hand, is off limits).

[Slartibartfast]

Goldberg's clarification does little to address the "toilet trained" aspect

I wasn't saying it did, just that it wasn't completely unrelated to the story. Which in Slarti-parlance can mean (making this up as I go along, understand) that it's interesting, but not all that relevant.

[Eric Martin]

That's how I took it Slarti. Just commenting on the quality of Goldberg's mea culpa.

[alphie]

It may be disappointing to learn that journalists try to minimize the amount of work they have to do to receive their paycheck, but...it shouldn't be surprising.

[Jay C]

"As Jeffrey Goldberg might boast, most of our leading journalists have been "toilet trained" in the norms of establishment journalism, and the extreme of deference journalists are expected to show to their subjects Republicans, conservatives, the military and the enablers of the above. Amazingly, Goldberg thinks this is a good thing."

Minor edit....

[ral]

Due deference:

Now though you'd have said that head was dead
(For its owner dead was he),
It stood on its neck, with a smile well-bred,
And bowed three times to me!
It was none of your impudent off-hand nods,
But as humble as could be;
For it clearly knew
The deference due
To a man of pedigree,
Of pedigree!

And it's oh, I vow,
This deathly bow
Was a touching sight to see;
Though trunkless, yet
It couldn't forget
The deference due to me!

Touching, yes? As I recall the associated penalty has something to do with boiling in oil. Forward to Uzbekistan.

[publius]

The best line, though, was from his clarification: "I despise violent keyboard-cowboyism".

That one takes the taco I think.

[Sator Arepo]

"David Brooks writes the following sentence today:"

"Writes" is such an ugly word; in this instance, a malapropism.

[AreaMan]

Jeffrey Goldberg wasn't favoring deference to the powerful. Or the weak, either. He was pointing out that journalists with large audiences shouldn't be making beginners mistakes. Anymore.

[Eric Martin]

Jeffrey Goldberg wasn't favoring deference to the powerful. Or the weak, either. He was pointing out that journalists with large audiences shouldn't be making beginners mistakes.

And what beginner's mistakes were those?