It's been a few months now since John Stewart's face-off with CNBC's Jim Cramer. We've moved on, of course, but that interview remains one of the best modern examples of a journalist effectively exposing and dressing down an industry whose disregard for professional obligation bore a heavy cost for real Americans.
The issues with CNBC, the lack of serious analysis, the cozying up with corporations, were obviously the main story there, but in addressing Cramer specifically, that interview touched on another serious issue, a problem that seems increasingly endemic in all sorts of journalistic media as it transitions from its cable and print incarnations to this more interactive world we have here - ego.
After reading Keith Olbermann's diary here, and having it read to me again on Countdown last night, I found myself struggling with this question. I felt bad for Keith, having been very moved by his earlier tribute to his mother. And yet, in spite of hearing this latest story twice, I found I couldn't understand it. He was being, not exactly attacked, but gossiped about by two websites, one of which I'd never heard of and another which I didn't care for. Keith, have you met the internet? It's a middle school cafeteria.
So this morning, I found myself reading this piece, Edward R. Murrow's response to Joe McCarthy's accusations about him. As I read it, I found it was hard to read without hearing Keith's inflection on passages like this:
I believed 20 years ago and I believe today that mature Americans can engage in conversation and controversy, the clash of ideas, with Communists anywhere in the world without becoming contaminated or converted. I believe that our faith, our conviction, our determination are stronger than theirs, and that we can compete and successfully, not only in the area of bombs but in the area of ideas.
Senator McCarthy couldn't even get my relationship with CBS straight. He repeatedly referred to me as the Educational Director, a position I have not held for 17 years.
The Senator waved a copy of the Daily Worker, saying an article in it has praised me. Here is an example for what Senator McCarthy calls "praise" by William Z. Foster in the March 17 issue of The Daily Worker. Quote: "During the past 10 days, Senator McCarthy has received a number of resounding belts in the jaw. These came from Adlai Stevenson, E.R. Murrow, Senator Flanders, the Army leadership, broadcasting companies; even Eisenhower himself had to give McCarthy a slap on the wrist." That was the sole reference to me in Mr. Foster's article.
I realize that Mr. Murrow is one of Mr. Olbermann's inspirations, and I see how this style has served him, as it served Murrow, in fending off the sharks that are inevitably found in the dangerous seas both these guys have to swim in.
But what Murrow managed to do, amazingly, was to remove the "personal" from his personal defense. Absent was all but the slightest hint of hurt or personal affront. Listening to the audio (embedded on the same page), the most striking emotion you pick up is the little stumble you hear as he sort of apologizes for taking time to address his own defense:
We shall hope to deal with matters of more -- more vital interest for the country next week.
And of course, the context here matters. He's defending himself against a US senator who's all but threatening to investigate him for treason and sedition. A bit more worthy of defense than some sniping gossip on Wonkette, I think.
Now I understand that in Murrow's day, he didn't have to contend with thousands of sniping commenters on hundreds of blogs. Hell, he didn't even have to deal with HD (though if he did, I like to think he'd have avoided the Lou Dobbs soft focus crutch). If you're a public person, the internet can be a mean, mean place, and it's got to be impossible to detach yourself completely.
I'm reminded of a recent GBCW diary (now deleted), by David Sirota, in which you could see, laid bare, what this life does to your emotional health. It's not for everyone, and clearly Sirota saw that and made a move to defend his humanity - he got out. I have great respect for anyone who finds the wisdom to see when a certain life isn't for them and the courage to do something about it.
So who, then, will be the Murrows of the internet age? How are they going to descend into the tank with the sharks and survive getting their legs chewed off?
I have hope for the comedians, of course. Stewart, Colbert, et al., have managed to do this for a long time without having to take time out of their show to display their personal hurt. Perhaps by assuming the mantle of "fake", they insulate themselves from most of the criticism. Perhaps, as masters of timing, they just know when to jab and when to walk away. Perhaps, in an age with millions of channels, the self-effacing comedic style of a Stewart succeeds where the stoicism of a Murrow gets lost, but perhaps they have something in common, something beyond the style, that makes us all listen.
Obviously, the bloggers, who were born in this sea, have an easier time swimming in it. They seem to know when to respond and when to ignore, and how to moderate how much of their personal life comes through in their professional work. I notice, for example, how Kos relegates to Twitter, all his musings about vasectomies, biking stuff, and Dollhouse (that show is just too smart for him).
In an era where the old rules and boundaries are breaking down, where comedians are doing the job of journalists and journalists are becoming cast members in a giant, multi-network reality show, it seems like it's up to each participant to define their own rules, their own boundaries, their business model, and their conscience - stay true to those rules and avoid trying to appeal to some shared, unwritten law about what is and is not "beyond the pale". Ultimately, that law is gone, and those appeals will go unanswered.