One of the cornerstones of our system of representative democracy is the role of an unfettered and courageous press. So integral is this component that it is folded into our Bill of Rights and has become known as “The Fourth Estate,” as vital to freedom to as a balanced government.
Increasingly, though, it seems members of our press are willing to trade responsibility for prestige and privilege, less willing to hold political feet to the fire of exposure than they once were. In a day where bottom lines are increasingly more important than illumination, sheer entertainment is valued utmost. If it takes telling people what they want to hear and not what they need to know, if that is what sells copies and boosts ratings, then that is what rules.
And it is just as much a betrayal of the public trust as using political office primarily to line your pockets.
A recent blog from Salon.com writer Glenn Greenwald in the wake of the “Hillary Clinton is a monster” moment from a Barack Obama staffer has broached this subject fully.
An excerpt: “In one of the ultimate paradoxes, for American journalists — whose role in theory is to expose the secrets of the powerful — secrecy is actually their central religious tenet, especially when it comes to dealing with the most powerful. Protecting, rather than exposing, the secrets of the powerful is the fuel of American journalism. That’s how they maintain their access to and good relations with those in power.”
Greenwald goes on to discuss how this was highlighted in discussion between the British journalist who exposed the statement and American pundit Tucker Carlson. He also swipes at Washington press big-wig Tim Russert.
Russert, like Bob Woodward and others, appears a merchant of their own coziness with clout. It’s their proximity to the movers and shakers that seems to concern them as much as bringing all the facts to light. The whiff of power can indeed be intoxicating and seems to have overtaken the minds of too many journalists.
Regardless of Greenwald’s obvious political bias, he has some good points.
What does this have to do with Lagniappe? Well, for one, we’re a media outlet.
We’re also an entity that has taken an adversarial role on occasion. Ask Troy King.
But the problems I speak of in regard to national media can be even more pronounced on the local level. It’s easier to deny access, easier to shut out offending members of the press on a scale like you have in Mobile. And in a business where those very slim avenues are the difference between local journalists retaining or losing their jobs, it makes a difference. If running the prepared soundbites, not challenging the customary song-and-dance from the powerful is what it takes to keep making the mortgage payments, then that’s what suffices sometimes.
Without that capitulation, the next story may not be fleshed out, you may be scooped or you might find yourself on the fast track to a job selling used Chevys.
Through the years, I’ve heard the criticisms of our single major daily newspaper and seen some of those seemingly validated from time to time. As an alternative paper, closing some of those gaps is what I hope we can do at Lagniappe. It should be our job to raise the questions others fear to ask and to let the public know when they are being whispered to sweetly in an exchange of false security for true illumination.
If we are going to meet our opportunities for growth, this is as vital as anything else to make sure everyone reaps the rewards, not just a privileged few.