Okay, calling myself an ex-mainstream-media insider might be a bit of an exaggeration. I'm sure you haven't heard of me. But, the fact is: I regularly interviewed US senators, presidential candidates, policy makers, and cultural leaders for both local and national broadcasts. I hosted and produced talk shows, anchored news programs, and also worked as a straight journalist. The height of my then-career was a one-on-one interview with the president that led to international, front-page, above-the-fold news stories.
I was also a mediocre (at best) journalist. Not that I wasn't attempting to do a good job. But now -- some years older and wiser -- I can see that my biggest priority was to keep up with the headlines and conventional wisdom just enough to be able to present to my audience a "balanced" two-sided story with appropriate levels of conflict, entertainment, and apparent sophistication.
I liked to tell myself that it was my job to simplify each news story so that any middle-schooler could easily digest its dichotomous narrative. This, I felt -- since I was not an expert on anything -- gave me license to use an authoritative voice to report on everything, regardless of the superficiality of my comprehension of the issue at hand.
Part of the problem, of course, was that the system (e.g. my employers) required a certain quantity of output -- so that I never felt I had time to consume the news in any real depth. I was always on the lookout for shortcuts to preparing the day's program.
One of the most effective shortcuts my peers and I relied on was to tackle the day's narrative by means of piggy-backing on what other journalists and talking heads were already saying.
I entered the profession wanting to make a positive difference in the world, but I quickly embraced my role as a media professional because it justified what I felt was a necessary abandonment of my own critical thinking. I took comfort in being part of a professional community that set its own standards according to a realistic assessment of its own needs (e.g. deadlines and production values trumped accuracy and proportionality).
(All right, I know -- none of these confessions are earth-shattering. But I'm hoping to get to a larger point pretty quickly.)
Sure, some journalists and analysts are better than others. A few are exceptional. But I recognize myself (and my bad habits) every single day in media professionals of all stripes. It's sad and scary to realize how powerful these people are in creating the narratives that profoundly shape our lives, especially because I can so clearly see that these people are primarily fueled by things like pride, financial reward, personal prestige, and, ultimately, by fidelity to commercial considerations.
So... all very depressing, right? I mean, what can possibly be done about this monstrosity we call the mainstream media?
Well, on a personal level I've come to gather the majority of my news from opinionators whom I trust, whether on the blogs or cable TV -- as I'm sure is the case with many here. Contrary to conventional wisdom this is not because I only want to hear people I agree with.
It's because opionionators, by nature, tend to be rather serious consumers of information prior to being producers.
Sure, Keith Olbermann is susceptible to voicing the occasional misinformed rant due to professional deadlines, but every fiber in his body suggests that he's passionately determined to absorb and investigate culture and politics before spouting off -- precisely the opposite of an Ed Henry or a Cokie Roberts or even a David Gregory (those who seem to relish their positions of power in the game more than authentic listening and thinking). Dylan Ratigan (who I just heard accusing Obama of "backtracking" and then "back-backtracing" on the NY mosque issue) seems to care more about building a professional reputation as a truth-teller than actually telling the truth. Many bloggers, to my eye, are more concerned with carving out a cynical niche that attracts an angry audience than reflecting on political culture honestly and humbly.
I get it. I've been there. We want careers. And what more can we ask for than to find a career having to do with things we care about? But, still, the career is a priori. So the risks of self-deception and conflicts of interest are formidable.
Okay. Now here's where my little essay takes a controversial turn:
My -- and your -- personal rebellions to the overwhelming inertia of the powerfully destructive mainstream media aren't likely to do much to salvage the sweepingly distorted worldviews of average Americans on their golf courses.
And here's where Obama comes in.
Do you remember a few weeks ago when he appeared on "The View"?
Joy Behar admonished him. "You’ve done so much," she said, "yet the right wing seems to be hijacking the narrative."
"That’s your job!" he shot back.
This response, I believe, was very much in keeping with the cultural/political transformation he's been committed to since he first arrived on the national scene.
Now, I know that many here are impatient (at best) with Obama's reluctance to regularly enter the fray. It's his job, critics say -- perhaps his most important job -- to fashion our national narrative. Why on earth would he abdicate such a responsibility to the likes of Joy Behar??
(If you're still reading this you're probably beginning to think that I've misleadingly couched yet another cooing defense of the president as a hard-hitting indictment of the media. That's partly true. But I also believe that my cultural experience -- which, by the way -- goes beyond my years as a media professional -- gives me some insight into what Obama has been attempting.)
Bottom line: he is committed to treating us like intelligent adults, with the hope that doing so can gradually lead us to engaging one another as intelligent adults.
Let me ask you this: we have a huge and powerful media, ostensibly seeking truth and balance and objectivity. Why on earth should it be the president's job to keep them honest? Why on earth does he need to point out all their inaccuracies and distortions? Shouldn't media professionals be invested in reflecting the world as clearly as possible without someone always wagging fingers at them?
Finger wagging is, frankly, enabling.
If, for example, the administration felt the need to correct Christiane Amanpour's representation of Obama's mosque statements as backpeddling, nothing essential would change in institutional dynamics. Obama would merely become another opionator in the soup of opinionators. "White House defends backtracking charges -- we report, you decide."
Of course, as we all know, Obama is a famous pragmatist. Unlike, say, Jimmy Carter, he's not a purist. So he's not going to refuse to ever participate in childish narrative-fashioning games. Things sometimes come to such a head (think Reverend Wright) that he recognizes he simply must jump in.
But, within reason, Obama has shown a very consistent inclination to ask all our institutions to step up to the plate and do their jobs on their own accords.
We are all necessarily players. It's far too easy to create scapegoats (as in Obama), thereby abdicating our own responsibility in the process of change.
Media: investigate, be curious, report what is true.
Congress: you are an equal branch of government. You cannot pretend that you would have loved a single-payer healthcare system, if only the White House had made it a priority.
People: you ARE our culture, and you ARE our government. You cannot merely sit back and sneer about how stupid and dishonest our media and government are and expect anything to change.
Thank goodness we have at least one person in a position of leadership -- leadership that is significant, yet also, when convenient, over-rated -- who is doing his part to convey that we all might try growing up a little and participate in culture with the sophistication necessary to survive the 21st century.
Yes, I know there are real and immediate fires to put out. But a huge part of Obama's vision has always been that substantive, permanent progressive change can only happen with a substantive cultural quantum leap. The rhetoric from both left and right over the past year and a half has deepened, not lessened, my belief in this vision. Yes, I want him to continue getting things done, but I remain a steadfast champion of his greater imagination.
Godspeed Barack Obama.