Should Reporters end their careers?

[bryant69]

One of the common complaints on here is that mainstream reporters don't slam into President Bush or members of his administration hard enough or often enough.

The return from the reporters side has several aspects; one they do feel like they are asking the importan questions.

Two if they piss off the Bush administration too much they will lose access.

Three, if they look too partisan in an environment that, rightly or wrongly (and for the record, I think the answer is wrongly), already suspects the media of being anti Bush and pro-Democratic Party, they lose their effectiveness to communicate to America.

Fourthly even if they asked the tough questions it would make little difference. They can nibble away for a hundred years and get more than they can if they take one big bite and never get another chance.

Anyway what do you think?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kiahzero]

1. Tough row to how

What exactly does that mean, by the way?

[bryant69]

2. I don't know

It's something my grandpa used to say--I always assumed it meant a tough path to follow.

Edited to add--and I just realized I put in the wrong word. It should be tough row to hoe, rather than tough row to how.

[GiovanniC]

3. Assuming

That more than just a handful of reporters stood up and asked the tough questions, then the Bush White House would have a big problem on their hands explaining away the fact that they have shut out every reporter that did their jobs.

"Tough row to hoe" or not, there is one simple fact that many people often seem to forget, and that's this: the media is bigger and more powerful than the presidency.

Let me say that again. The media is BIGGER and MORE POWERFUL than even the President of the United States.

He should fear them, not vice versa.

[bryant69]

4. Yeah, but that's like saying . . .

the workers are more powerful than the bosses. It's definately true. But an individual worker, like an individual reporter, is not more powerful than the boss / President Bush. And is unlikely to stick his/her neck out without being sure of the results.

Bryant

[GiovanniC]

9. "I Am Only One...

But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do."

[bryant69]

14. Fair enough

I'm just saying it's not as easy as one might wish.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Sacrifice and doing the right thing rarely are

Have you ever read Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg? In it, he describes a similar phenomenon occurring with himself and high-level advisors in the LBJ administration. They all knew that the war was a disaster and unwinnable, but they felt they could have the best positive effect from within the system. They didn't dare speak out, otherwise they would have been exiled from it (as Ellsberg later was).

Upon writing a letter questioning the war with some of his other Rand colleagues, Ellsberg recalled the chilly reaction he got from most of the other analysts. Their problem wasn't whether or not Ellsberg was right or wrong -- their primary concern was self-interest. Namely, they were worried about losing their comfortable jobs at Rand.

With the reporters, its no different. They're worried first about losing their comfortable jobs rather than doing the right thing.

[GiovanniC]

18. Lots of Jobs Aren't Easy

It's not easy for a cop to face down a deadly killer on a high-risk warrant. But it's their job, so they face the risks.

It's not easy for a public defender to give a rapist the best available defense, but it's their job.

Now, maybe it's hard for these reporters. If they say something bad about the president, they might not get a chair in the press room to get lied to condescendingly by Scott McClellan, and that would be tragic.

And, you know, maybe they wouldn't get to ask the president the question that Dan Bartlett's office carefully prepared for them to ask at the next presidential press conference.

But Jesus, there's like 50 press-credentialed lapdogs ready to fall in line and say whatever the White House tells them to. There's a gap... a wide-open, unfilled consumer demand for TRUTH.

[redqueen]

11. With unity, there is no need to stick one's neck out

Only the leader will -- that person who shows the rest of the pack what to do, who organizes and unites them in common cause to improve things, they will be the one sticking their neck out. Once the masses unite, the power is undeniable.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. ". . .comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. . ."

is their job.

:kick:

[IrateCitizen]

6. A better question would be, do they choose money or integrity?

People who reach the "highest rungs" of journalism, especially within the realm of TV "infotainment", are VERY well compensated. However, with most of them, it appears that they have sold out their integrity in pursuit of their ambition.

Don't portray most of these top reporters as being at all concerned with the public interest. They're mostly not. What they ARE most concerned with is the furthering of their own ambition. If that means that they have to curry favor with people in high places, then they are willing to do that. After all, being a top TV teleprompter-reader pays a LOT of money these days.

Journalists toiling in the trenches, doing honest journalism, can make a decent living. But they're never going to get those 7-figure salaries. To some people, those 7-figure salaries are more important than integrity.

To be quite honest, I have no respect or sympathy for the positions that these people find themselves in. They made their own bed -- the problem is, that the American public ends up having to lay in it.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Why not ask, Should reporters do their job?

It's not a matter of reporters needing to "slam" Bush. That's for editorialists. Reporters report. And the "mainstream" American media has been failing this task grievously. Many reporters and corporate media conglomerates are engaging in wilful misinformation to the point of having become Bush's co-conspirators.

Of all citizens of the first world, Americans are the poorest served by their media.

[denverbill]

8. Bush needs reporters more than they need him.

If Shrub restricts access, reporters should stop covering him.

See how damned fast Shrub comes back begging them to return.

[calimary]

12. Quite a nice reporting job could be done by someone who's lost access.

There are MANY ways to go around it. Okay, fine, you pissed 'em off and lost your go-to-the-White-House-FREE card? Fine. Then do your standups outside, and in EVERY report, make sure you clearly state that the White House has refused you access because you reported (or better yet - TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT) something they didn't like. THEN, you fill your reports with react from the opposition - in this case Democrats - to whatever the issue is, about which you're reporting. You'd fill up a two-and-a-half minute piece with PLENTY of stuff, visuals, soundbites, talking heads, etc. You'd NEVER fail to find spinners wanting airtime. You'd get the biggest names on the opposing side.

Then, you could even use soundbites from man-on-the-street interviews, where the carefully-worded question would be put to each of them: what do you think about the fact that the White House won't let us ask them questions about (whatever issue or controversy or lie) they've done that they don't want the public to know about?"

And, eventually, you'd begin to draw blood. Especially if, EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU WENT ON THE AIR, you repeated that you were denied access because the "official line from the White House" did not appreciate that you revealed what they've been TRYING TO HIDE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (it's all in how you word it, but you must do this every time). You could say "the White House has consistently REFUSED our requests for interviews or a response, and in fact has barred our network from its news conferences because they don't like what we're reporting" - followed by a one-sentence rehash of the controversy they're trying to keep covered up that you attempted to pursue in the interest of justice and the public's right to know.

And you would always say "the White House REFUSED to comment on..." rather than "no comment from the White House." You use the more active-tense word "REFUSED," instead of something that sounds more passive or less confrontational. There's TONS of things that could be done.

I mean, there are TONS of ways to do it, and ways to word it, and ways to deliver it verbally, that will ream them a new one, and make them look SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad and SO petty and SO mean and SO spiteful. A good, gutsy reporter could really let 'em have it. And really put them in their place. And enough of this bad publicity would eventually provoke someone in the White House to get out there and start giving their side. Because this would generate LOTS of controversy, and if even ONE reporter decided resolutely and stubbornly to tell the truth and KEEP telling the truth, it'd have an impact.

But you'd have to be in their face and stay there. You'd have to state in your reports, EVERY TIME, some very specific and strategically-chosen wording like "accountable to the American People," or "...who are supposed to be public servants" or "...who are our elected representatives, not dictators or kings" or something like that, just reminding and reminding and reminding.

I'm really surprised that nobody's tried this. I guess they REALLY ARE that chicken-shit now. But MAN-Oh-MAN are they missing a GOLDEN opportunity to bring this cabal to its knees, and show 'em who's REALLY boss - like the AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR WHOM THEY WORK, AT WHOSE PLEASURE THEY SERVE. Enough of this and even THIS arrogant, imperial, unaccountable White House would start to buckle.

Oh yeah, and if there were further punitive actions from the bushies, like maybe a stray anthrax letter - MAN, bring 'em on! You could make SUCH hay about that, and insinuate and infer all kinds of things about who might have sent it, and why, and why you or your network was supposedly singled out for this, when all the other networks and reporters who are "more docile in their reporting" or "who accept the White House spin" or "who are friendlier and less dogged in pursuit of uncovering the facts" were not threatened. Then, you follow it, yet again, with another one-sentence summary of what you were trying to dig out that the White House stonewalled or gave you grief for or locked you out for. You just keep it up, making them look worse and worse and worse. You could do reports about the other reporters and how smarmy and suck-ass they are, and compare their reportage to yours, and compare their lapdog treatment of the bushies to your own. I mean, you could just go on and on and on. There is NO shortage of material available for a reporter or a network that refused to cow-tow. NONE. It's just pure cowardice we're seeing. Just disgraceful.

[0007]

17. Thank you for your fine post.

[redqueen]

10. The correct answer is #1

There is no doubt about the critical necessity of a free and unbiased press in order to maintain a 'free' country.

[Bjornsdotter]

13. Freedom of the Press

Hi,

The bumper sticker on my car says...

Freedom of the Press
Does Not Mean the Right to Lie


and I believe this to the bottom of my heart.

Cheers,
Kim

[bhunt70]

16. They should do their job, not become groupies FOR ANYONE.

report facts, ask questions.

[charlie]

19. End their careers?

Strange way to frame it. If they choose not to report the obvious spin, lies, and turnabouts of the administration, they're merely an extension of Bushco PR, and their careers as journalists are already over, no?

[Spazito]

20. There are so few REAL reporters left in the US media...

that I wasn't able to answer your poll (assuming it wasn't strictly for American DUers to answer). Most of the people we see and hear from these days in the US are hired for their looks, their ability to giggle and still look "cute" and read infotainment news. It is very sad to see and doesn't bode well for the US, imo.