I happened to watch "The Fall of Saigon" last night on PBS. It was a re-edited version of episode 12 of "Vietnam: A Television History" the groundbreaking 13-part 1983 WGBH Boston TV documentary. I noted that the people in political power at the time were in fear of the nation's press. The Pentagon Papers were being published by Daniel Ellsberg in the NYT, WaPo, and 17 other newspapers. And of course Woodward and Bernstein were working their magic at the WaPo. The White House and Congress were genuinely afraid of the truth coming out.
The age of investigative journalism in that mold is dead. There is not one single reporter working for any national news outlet with the balls, or the editorial freedom to investigate anything. Not even the least claim. What we have now in this country is a news media corps that is entirely devoted to "He said/she said" journalism. They are not interested in facts, or truth, they are merely interested in quotes.
If a Washington beat reporter hears rumors or innuendo about Guckert/Gannon for instance, their first instinct seems to be, well, let's ask Scott McClellan what he thinks about this. They ask, he gives them a quote, there's no follow-up. Then they start asking Congressional leaders. The Republicans give them a nothingburger quote, The Democratic leader tries to sound diplomatic and says there might be some questions there, and that's it. Story over.
When it comes to policy decisions and legislative actions it's the same thing. I'm reminded of a story read by Brian Williams on NBC news the day after the House passed the new energy bill. The story proceeded with shots of Dennis Hastert standing at a gas station saying "gas prices, gas prices, gas prices." and then to Williams saying "Democrats say...." And then a few shots of the ANWR and then concluded with some platitude about having to get used to high prices at the pumps. I was practically yelling at the TV screen. "What does the bill do? Give us some numbers. Give us some bullet points. Tell us any single fact about the energy bill you moron!" I was completely dumbfounded by how the story was utterly lacking in substance.
After watching that story, I realized that national TV news is how 90% of Americans get their information. And what it indicated to me is that they aren't getting ANY information. They are presented with a choice. Who do I believe? Right now, a thin majority believe the Republican line.
Back in the Vietnam era, scandals were made real by investigative reporters and independent editors willing to dig for the truth behind these stories. And people of that era were far more credulous about what the press was telling them. They trusted sources like the WaPo and NYT.
In "The Fall of Saigon" last night, I watched as the House Judiciary Committee voted to proffer articles of impeachment against Nixon. The vote was not strictly party line. Enough republicans with a healthy respect for the truth of the abuses of power coming from the White House voted their conscience and the vote passed. It was shortly after that Nixon resigned.
Over the last thirty years there has been a shift both in the media and government. It is my opinion that the shift happened first in the media, and it has prompted the shift in government.
The media began to report gossip, first with shows like A Current Affair, Inside Edition, and the rest of their tabloid ilk. People stopped reading newspapers that printed in black and white. USA Today, while doing some of the more honest journalism today about the Bush administration, with its color layout signaled the beginning of the era of `color' journalism. Suddenly it was more important to read the "Life" section than the news. Suddenly the Enquirer and other tabloids seemed to have more legitimacy. Suddenly local papers across the country started printing in color and relegating the news and politics sections to second class status. Pictures became primary content and words were merely filler. Style became more important than substance, and favor-currying corporate leadership began to stifle editorial independence.
And journalism began to suffer. As children who have now grown up with tabloid journalism have now infiltrated the ranks of working reporters nationwide, they are simply following the patterns they know. Everything now boils down to "He said/she said." Finally Fox news perfected this form of journalism by adding the element that had been invasive in talk radio over the last 30 years -- Opinion. Fox reports by quoting primary sources, and then offers opinion, instead of fact, to flesh out the story. "We report, you decide," is a slick way of saying "We get quotes, we spin them down to the lowest common denominator, and you lap it up."
The government has changed because the media changed. The time politicians realized that style was more important than substance began during the Reagan era. The Teflon President realized that the way the media was changing, the truth often didn't matter. It was simply a matter of coming off as "folksy." People's perceptions of the truth can be filtered, and with the media as a willing accomplice, he managed to pass almost completely unscathed through the Iran-Contra affair. It was about that time that the Republicans began to realize that they could do anything, simply anything and get away with it.
The Republican will to power was interrupted in 1992 by Bill Clinton, who as a centrist, and with the considerable help of Ross Perot, threw a stumbling block in the path of the still-embryonic "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." But Clinton galvanized them, and tempered their resolve. They tried with all their might to bring Clinton down, I think probably with two goals in mind: One, to further corrupt the media into the "He said/she said" mold, and two, to force the democrats into forming a pattern of dealing with the media which could be followed by a Republican successor.
The pattern emerged, fully formed, perhaps with a main stream media eager to cut darling Clinton some slack, they were now fully engaged in "He said/she said." After the Ken Starr persecutions, they had remolded debate into a form that neither side can win except on style points alone. No facts are presented to help anyone form a rational judgment about our government, and as such, the administration and Congress are no longer afraid of the power of the press. As has been said many times before, our "fourth estate" has now become a "fifth column." The only real check on the integrity of our government is gone.
So where does this leave us? Our main stream media forces every American to choose who they believe. Once politics has boiled down to a matter of faith in such a manner, it's easy to bridge the gap between religion and politics. Right-wing conservatives and "neo-cons" are free to push the "God, Guns, and Gays" agenda, and undo the New Deal. Will journalism ever recover the power and respect it once had?
Something has to change before real progress can be made. If it takes blogs, and online communities of concerned citizens like this one, then we owe every responsibility to discern and report the truth. Until a scandal comes along that's bigger than Guckert/Gannon, that is momentous enough to give our online communities the respect they deserve, and is broken, and reported on accurately and truthfully by us, then perhaps the nation will languish in our current mode, and perhaps we will suffer as a result.