There’s been a discussion (some of it neatly summarized on the Daily Show) of elite journalists’ reaction to the explosive comments made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staffers to Rolling Stone freelancer Michael Hastings. One admission came via a Politico story, captured by NYU’s Jay Rosen (6/24/10):
And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.
Rosen notes that this line in the Politico piece was subsequently removed, perhaps because it revealed too much:
Think about what the Politico is saying: an experienced beat reporter is less of a risk for a powerful figure like McChrystal because an experienced beat reporter would probably not want to “burn bridges” with key sources by telling the world what happens when those sources let their guard down.
This is revealing, perhaps, but completely unsurprising. Journalists have been admitting to this sort of thing for years. Take one example (cited in FAIR’s Extra! Update, 12/01) from an American University forum (10/1/01) where PBS correspondent Ray Suarez was asked about the failure to pose difficult questions to certain elite guests:
Well, yeah, access is like oxygen when you’re a reporter. And if you’re going to do something I guess that’s going to jeopardize access in the future, you better be pretty sure that this person who is going to perceive what you are about to do to them as burning them is someone that you can do without in the future after you burn them. That’s a tough straddle. It shouldn’t be, but it is.
For an example of how a beat reporter normally operates, take ABC Pentagon correspondent Martha Raddatz’s assessment of Gen. David Petraeus (Nightline, 6/23/10):
A warrior and a scholar, Petraeus is sometimes jokingly referred to as a water walker, since almost everything he touches seems to turn to gold.
Or recall the days when Donald Rumsfeld was considered a rock star by the Washington press corps. FAIR’s Steve Rendall ran down the worst of that here:
“Sixty-nine years old, and you’re America’s stud,” Tim Russert told Rumsfeld when he interviewed him on NBC‘s Meet the Press (1/20/02); Larry King informed him that “you now have this new image called sex symbol” (CNN‘s Larry King Live, 12/06/01). Fox News‘ Jim Angle (12/11/01) called him “a babe magnet for the 70-year-old set.”
“I love you, Donald,” Margaret Carlson announced on CNN‘s Capital Gang (12/23/01), where the Time magazine columnist appears regularly in the role of left-of-center pundit. Carlson’s Time magazine colleague, veteran defense correspondent Mark Thompson, told the Chicago Tribune (10/22/01), “Although he has not told us very much, he has been like a father figure.”
Jim Naureckas
A Tiny Revolution points out that Martha Raddatz is guilty not only of sycophancy, but also of an appalling mixed metaphor:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003316.html
Earle Pittman
If one of McChrystal’s subordinates had dissed him like he did his CinC, said subordinate would be stripped of his rank and cashiered so fast his head would spin. McChrystal’s problems go back to his coverup of the Pat Tillman affair. McChrystal’s goal appears to draw out the war as long as possible, at which he has succeeded, for his own job security. He should have been stripped of his rank and fired from the military. Our troops deserve no less.
Dana Franchitto
Good observation, Jim. yes, when Martha Raddatz was on NPR ,she marched along dutifully to the drums of war sounded by “public” radio
george beres
Journalism schools are the cause of much failure of journalists to operate with integrity. How much can one expect from a graduate if a J School (even a once-fine one like my alma mater, Medill at Northwestern) dilutes J degrees by awarding them to majors in public relations? – George Beres
jim Greene
Thanks to FAIR for reminding us how steadfastly the corporate media supports the military-industrial-congressional complex that has turned “the last best hope of free men” into an oligarch of militarists and money men.
And exposing the gushing affection of Russert.King & Collins for Donald Rumsfeld, one of the more crass money men ever to lead the militarists. While Rumsfeld was telling America you have to go to war with the army you have he was running to the banlk with the profits he made from the company stock he would not give up as required by law. When he bombed the ancient cities of Iraq to shock and awe the American Public and allowed the museums to be looted of 4,000 years of artifacts he said “stuff happens” and when he and Cheney retired they walked away with more money from their jobs than any other 2 cabinet officers in history.
Rumsfeld was right “stuff happens” especially when “the slothful man says, the lion is in the streets” which is what America’s voters are saying when they turn to the corporate version of news rather than digging out the kind of information that FAIR presents.
TimN
It’s about the money, too: what “reporter” wants to schlep along at 20 thousand a year? Once they get a taste of the big money, all sense of reportorial duty goes out the window. It’s unnerving how easily they rationalize their selling-out. Just like the people they “cover.” (And that word takes on a whole different and accurate meaning.)
P.S.: You’re right, jim Greene. Rumsfeld and Cheney were, of course, quite wealthy before they began their serious looting in the Bush Administration. Two truly odious men. And while we’re on the subject of Rumsfeld and sychophantic reporters, who can forget Candy Crowley nearly breaking down and crying when she recounted the trials of the soon-to-be-canned Rumsfeld on the Ed Schultz show a few years ago? I actually heard it live, and it was truly awful, truly shocking.
Esteban
After I initially commented I clicked the -Notify
me when new feedback are added- checkbox and now every time a
comment is added I get 4 emails with the identical comment.
Is there any manner you can take away me from that service?
Thanks!