Over the last couple of weeks a parade of non-journalists has approached me, offline and online, wanting to talk about the Wikileaks mess. Most of the discussion has boiled down to this, which I'm quoting from a note:
Why isn't the American press screaming at the top of its lungs about this. How can we let the Joe Lieberman's of the world lead this discussion. If the press doesn't take a stand here we are doomed. There will be no reason to have a "press" in this country. Politicians can simply post their "press releases" themselves.
I can think of some reasons. They are sad ones.
- Julian Assange isn't a "journalist," and Wikileaks isn't a "journalism organization." Many journalists are horrified by the implications of letting just anybody practice journalism. I've actually heard People Who Ought To Know Better -- journalists, educators, former editors of major newspapers -- call for certification and, in effect, the licensing of Real Journalists. It's as if freedom of the press is a privilege of professionals, not a human right of some mere computer nerd.
- The "liberal media" meme is bogus, a giant mind fake. The American press is an infotainment/advertising industry owned by giant corporations and run, on the whole, but rich white men for the financial benefit of themselves and investors. The "liberal media" complaint has long been the refuge of political weasels (remember Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew), but its latter-day power comes from the media itself, manipulated by ultra-rich power brokers like Rupert Murdoch.
- Corporations don't like to get caught up in controversy -- especially not these days, when media companies are all in big economic trouble. Reporting about controversy generates an audience. Being in the controversy alienates large parts of the potential audience. It's bad business. (Fox News is not a counterargument. To understand when and how partisanship becomes economically advantageous, read Jay Hamilton's All the News That's Fit to Sell.)
- Local media doesn't find this local issue. Our press has, as I predicted years ago, separated out into distinct local and national layers. Most local newspapers today give only a passing nod to nonlocal news (and as a result, AP gets 80% of its revenues elsewhere). Don't go looking for your local newspaper to be worrying about foreign-policy fraud. Not their jobs. Our national mass media scene now is whittled down to a couple of rage-exploitation channels on cable, the New York Times, Murdoch's kleptocracy-supporting Wall Street Journal, and a pathetic free Gannett paper that everybody steps on when walking out of their hotel room in the morning. The network news organizations are hollow shells speaking to dying audiences, fearful of accelerating their own demise by taking a stand.
- The concept of "property" has been extended to embrace information, supporting the claim that the information from secret cables is "stolen property." It used to be that telling a lie about a person or a corporation could get you into trouble. Now governments and corporations can claim injury when someone states a fact, and, stunningly, act to enforce silence without any judicial oversight. Now, if you can't tell a lie and you can't state a fact, what else is there? (Note that these restrictions do not apply to those in power -- as shown by the cables, Washington is free to lie, and insiders strategically leak classified information whenever it's politically advantageous.)
There are many people who are legitimately troubled by the release of secret information and there is plenty of cause to question the judgment of the Wikileaks editors who are posting this stuff. Don't go around expecting anyone to have clean hands. I keep coming back to a couple of basic principles. One is that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. The other is that our first freedom is the right to speak freely the truth. If our government turns its back on that freedom, then none of the others will matter. But I'm not writing newspaper editorials or running a newsroom these days.
Comments
Liberal Media
The conservatism of American journalism
'Basic goodness of government'... Bah!
Wikileaks: "Journalism," and the "Liberal Media"
Pigeon Holes
Fear?
Maybe we can avoid Orwell's vision of 1984 after all ?
'Real Journalists'
(This is a post from Andy Manson that was caught in the spam filter for unknown reasons. I'm restoring it.)
Your 1st reason may be your shortest - but it's actually the most interesting, and probably the most important in terms of your profession.
The speed, and the timing with which every Journalist and so-called 'commentator' rushes to get in the seemingly-mandatory '...but of course they are not Journalists...' remark when either writing their own puff-pieces or being interviewed on the subject of WL has now reached the stage where it's actually amusing to watch.
I think it's fair to say that in any profession there is a certain type of individual for whom the 'title' of his job is more important than the 'doing' of it.
Of course, for these people, the fact that WL has rapidly usurped the traditional journalist as being the 'go-to-guy' for sensitive material is of course a huge slap in the face. Especially as it's happened against a backdrop of some spectacular failures by the established media in handling both confidential material and the sources of that material. The death of David Kelly in the UK being just one example.
They'll continue to play the 'Oh, but of course I'm a *real* journalist' card, and good luck to them. The world needs these people - a lot of cats get stuck up trees.
Meanwhile the rest of the world carries on. The smarter people in your industry are embracing the fact that a new, reliable vehicle for discreetly delivering interesting material while protecting sources is available. These people will thrive because they can look beyond their own marginal self-interest; while the others....well, frankly I don't think too many of them were ever going to be winning Pulitzers in any case.
I'd be inclined to take this
anonymous
Some perceptive points
To Howard
thank you. thank you. thank
Not Left or Right