Journalism at its Best.... and Worst

Sarah and I recently watched the movie State of Play, a (sort of) film adaptation of the critically acclaimed BBC miniseries which underscores the important role that objective investigative journalism can play in a messy world where special interests are intertwined with other special interests and the truth is sometimes obscured by press releases and public relations spin. It's preachy at times, but entertaining enough with solid performances from a stellar ensemble cast, including Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Hellen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn, Jason Bateman and Jeff Daniels. It's worth a rental.

I get it. The not so subtle preached point is: Journalism's important because it keeps people honest, and we should all collectively lament the death of the newspaper because people are more inclined to get free online real-time facts on Twitter and blogs as opposed to appreciating the hard, arduous, time-consuming and often expensive investigative analysis that is slowly dying out because it's not profitable enough for big media and news conglomerates.

At the same time, there are just days that I look at the news, and think man, this is drivel. For example, The New York Times recently had this article headline: "Christie May Have Gotten Improper Aid"

So if you're a New Jersey resident, you're inclined to think the guy has somehow been caught with his hand in a cookie jar, and you'll cast your vote for Corzine, who ironically just got endorsed by the Times. But what's with the ambiguity of the claim? Maybe he did, but maybe he didn't? If you have proof, report it definitively. If you don't, it's not news, just conjecture.

It reeks of what legendary publisher Walter Annenberg did when he wanted to marginalize Democrat gubernatorial candidate Milton Shapp, who was opposing a merger against Annenberg's business interests. As detailed in Wikipedia:

During a press conference, an Inquirer reporter asked Shapp if he had ever been a patient in a mental hospital. Having never been in one, Shapp simply said "no". The next day, a five-column front page Inquirer headline read, “Shapp Denies Mental Institution Stay.” Shapp and others have attributed his loss of the election to Annenberg's newspaper.

And that tradition continues today. Even on CNN.com, articles are placed under the "Latest News" category but not explicitly labeled as partisan commentary until clicking on the article link are headlines such as: Borger: Republicans snipe instead of offering solutions. Is Borger a CNN reporter who was able to see the inner workings of a RNC strategy meeting or a political hack with an agenda? The context makes a big difference.

So the struggling world of journalism trudges forward, perhaps considering all measures, including Times columnist Maureen Dowd's idea to use vice (drinking, sex and gambling) to subsidize its survival.