Near the end of this column by the Seattle Times editorial page editor, Jim Vesely, is this claim:
Media companies, especially newspapers, are by default nearly the lone agents of the democratic form of government.
I would have thought that elected officials had something to do with democracy, but what do I know?
If his view is widely shared in newsrooms, then we can understand some things that otherwise seem inexplicable, such as the New York Times' belief that newspapers have the right to overrule the president of the United States on national security questions. Being a journalist is more important, in their view, than being elected. Getting your job from, for instance, the Sulzberger family, is worth more than getting your job from 62 million voters.
That this view is profoundly undemocratic, in fact anti-democratic, does not seem to occur to many journalists. Somehow, they believe that they can demand aristocratic privileges — in the service of democracy. I doubt that I can convince many journalists that they are wrong on this point, but I will give them this warning: One of the things that makes many Americans despise journalists is the arrogance so common in that profession.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Not satisfied with puffing his own work, Vesely also has sharp criticisms to make of his competition, including blogs:
Foremost, a decent newspaper is the enemy of rumor and a citizen of its place. Blogs are not the enemy of rumor, nor is talk radio or cable television. Rumor is not the substitute for truth, and it takes journalism to sift for truth.
Note the clever comparison. Decent newspapers are compared to all blogs, talk radio, and cable television. In fact, there are good newspapers and bad ones, good blogs and bad ones, good talk radio shows and bad ones. There may even be good cable television shows (other than those on C-SPAN), though I have seen so few cable shows recently that I won't venture an opinion on that question.
Unlike Vesely, I won't make great claims for my own work. But I will say this: I routinely see factual errors on Vesely's editorial pages, in pieces by Seattle Times employees, and pieces by outside writers. If they really want to "sift for truth", they should take a close look at the sieves they are using.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 20, 2007 03:14 PM | Email ThisHe's obviously had a few too many soda pops.
Posted by: Independent Voter on November 20, 2007 03:23 PMBuddy we don't need you fools at all.
If they haven't noticed, their empire is crashing down.
(your time is up)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2007 04:15 PMOne imagines Mr. Vesely (the Lone Agent) with snuff box in hand, waving off detractors with an embroidered hankerchief.
Does he wear the beauty mark on left cheek, or the right?
Posted by: Shaun on November 20, 2007 04:16 PMI concur and have nothing to add.
Posted by: JDH on November 20, 2007 05:03 PM* Journalism is one of the devices whereby industrial autocracy keeps its control over political democracy; it is the day-by-day, between-elections propaganda, whereby the minds of the people are kept in a state of acquiescence, so that when the crisis of an election comes, they go to the polls and cast their ballots for either one of the two candidates of their exploiters.
* The methods by which the "Empire of Business" maintains its control over journalism are four: First, ownership of the papers; second, ownership of the owners; third, advertising subsidies; and fourth, direct bribery. By these methods there exists in America a control of news and of current comment more absolute than any monopoly in any other industry.
* The reader will understand that I despise these "yellows"; they are utterly without honor, they are vulgar and cruel; and yet, in spite of all their vices, I count them less dangerous to society than the so-called "respectable" papers, which pretend to all the virtues, and set the smug and pious tone for good society--papers like the "New York Tribune" and the "Boston Evening Transcript" and the "Baltimore Sun," which are read by rich old gentlemen and maiden aunts, and can hardly ever be forced to admit to their columns any new or vital event or opinion. These are "kept" papers, in the strictest sense of the term, and do not have to hustle on the street for money. They serve the pocketbooks of the whole propertied class--which is the meaning of the term "respectability" in the bourgeois world. On the other hand the "yellow" journals, serving their own pocketbooks exclusively, will often print attacks on vested wealth, provided the attacks are startling and sensational, and provided the vested wealth in question is not a heavy advertiser.
and JDH says that now that the Newspapers are not the sole source, and are held accountable for what they write by the internet, that is a good thing.
* H. L. Mencken, letter published in The American Mercury (June 1936)
Don't even get me started on Walter Duranty of the NYT and his role in genocide.
This one's beneath contempt. These Bush guys have stooped to a new low. Is it January 2009 yet?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 20, 2007 06:49 PMCraigslist does it better and does it for free. It is hard to compete with better and free when you are trying to keep the world safe for democracy. Oh well.
Posted by: Huey on November 20, 2007 07:02 PMYes it is beneath contempt and the Free Press will get it corrected. I seriously doubt your contention that this was caused by Bush or that the bureaucracy are all Bush appointees. It is merely a bureaucracy out of control and trying to enforce rules without concern with the consequences.
Please remember 'Occam's Razor' before blinding blasting any party or President.
Thanks!
Posted by: me on November 20, 2007 08:26 PMI was planning on being a reporter when I graduated from College, it was my senior year when I met a few people very similar to the above fellow, and decided I couldn't do it. There was no way I could work with institutions that thought along these lines and remain sane.
Posted by: cliff on November 20, 2007 09:08 PMAn "agent" does something for his "principal." News media function as agents for both the government and the citizens -- as a conduit for information and opinions that flow back and forth. Hardly anyone takes the time to go personally to a speech or meeting. We depend on the news media to act like our agents and tell us what occurred or what was said. And, the newspapers give us a limited forum to talk back to government in a very public way.
It's not a great analogy, since the "principal" would be in control of the "agent," if it were truly an agency relationship.
But, if you stop and think about it, it's not a bad analogy either.
Blogs can (and do) perform a similar function, even though they are often more personalized conduits and rarely have the kind of first-hand information that a reporter on the scene can provide (no matter how biased that reporter may be).
Someone tell Vesely that the Chattanooga Times is no longer the Chattanooga Times. It's the Chattanooga Times-Free Press -- a consolidation of what had been a morning paper with a left-leaning view and an afternoon paper with a right-leaning view. The two were really great in combination, so long as they were separate. My parents always subscribed to both. Now, something's missing after the consolidation. As bad as the P-I is, I hope it stays as separate as can be -- and that the Seattle Times tries harder to find and publish the other viewpoint as often as possible.
Posted by: Micajah on November 20, 2007 10:02 PMbut meant: " we are the agents of the Democrats form of gov't"
Posted by: righton on November 21, 2007 05:18 AMThere are good reporters and bad ones. The coverage Mike Lindblom did of RTID/ST2 in the past few months was quite impressive.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on November 21, 2007 12:40 PMHe writes "Foremost, a decent newspaper is the enemy of rumor and a citizen of its place," but the newspapers that the First Amendment was *designed* to protect *were* filled with rumors -- and even lies -- from top to bottom. They were far more like DailyKos than The New York Times.
The true lone agent of democracy is, of course, the people. The press is not an anointed group of people, it is anyone who chooses to publish his thoughts. The Internet is the press every tiny bit as much as any newspaper, and they are just as important to democracy. Period, end of story.
Granted, some Internet sites are worse than others. But it is not about better or worse. It's about liberty and participation and expression.
Posted by: pudge on November 21, 2007 04:18 PMThis is how the press fools itself into pretending it is unbiased - it does not tell us lies so much as simply ignore things that it does not agree with (although the press is inordinately fond of liars like the Joe Wilsons). They rely on their readership being insufficiently curious to wonder whether they are seeing the whole picture, and simply lapping up what they dish out.
Vesely stands firm as "the guardian of the public's right to know what he knows is right for the public to know."
Posted by: sherlock on November 24, 2007 08:21 AM