The Role of the Press ... It's Complicated, Alright?

via Atrios I see that we were treated to another whining examination by media professionals of the threat the hate-filled  "blogosphere" poses to civil discourse and information dissemination.   Think Progress has the details.  The highlight is Richard Wolffe holding forth on what the role of the press is not:

“They want us to play a role that isn’t really our role. Our role is to ask questions and get information. … It’s not a chance for the opposition to take on the government and grill them to a point where they throw their hands up and surrender. … It’s not a political exercise, it’s a journalistic exercise. And I think often the blogs are looking for us to be political advocates more than journalistic ones.”

Ms. Bumiller, some of whose frequent appearances on media panels have been archived right here, begs to differ:

What's the role of the press?

We play a really important role in trying to ferret out what’s really going on in the government. My role is to dig underneath the official pronouncements and speeches and Press Conferences and try and tell my readers what is the motivation, what is the White House really doing? What are our elected leaders really doing behind the public facade?

And then, in the face of reality (it can be scary after all) to retreat:

Is there confusion about what role the press has? People criticize the press in a sense as if the press is the opposition. So that in a lot of ways the Bush White House has benefited from not having a very effective opposition for a large part of their presidency.

Right, I mean now there's less of that obviously because they've got a really strong opposition in Kerry, but yes, especially for the war. John Kerry voted for the war. Congress was largely behind the president for that war. So people who were angry about the war felt that ... they beat up on us: "Why aren't you stopping this?" It's not my role. Believe me, I've seen what happens when you come on too strong with a politician on television"

And to retreat:

There was such tension and anger in the country right before that war started and it all came out on us.

I think we were very deferential because in the East Room press conference it's live. It's very intense. It's frightening to stand up there.

I mean think about it, you're standing up on prime time live televsion asking the President of the United States a question and when the country is about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening and I think it made, you know, nobody wanted to get into an argument with the president at this serious time. It had a very heavy feeling of history to it, that press conference.

And to retreat again in another media panel, which gave us my two favorite Bumiller quotes of all time, emphaszied below:

I'm glad you think that we have so much power that we could have stopped the war. She went on to admit that the NYT coverage "was deficient in this area" and that the NYT was singled out for attention because they "basically apologized" for it, drawing attention to themselves.  She said, I think we also wrote a lot of skeptical stories. She asked the man to promise to go back and read a "terrific" series by Michael Gordon about how we got into Iraq and what went wrong. It ran two or three weeks ago.  She said that the editor of the NYT has said that, one way to go forward is just to do really good journalism.  And a few words later: Just bear in mind that we didn't start the war. Alright? Sometimes people forget that.

To review:  The press' job is to dig underneath official pronouncements so that they can tell readers what's going on behind the public facade unless that would require coming on too strong with a politician on television OR if it's, you know, scary.  And, above all, the press does not start wars, so lay off.  Gosh,  I miss that woman.

For more self-absorbed media analysis, emphasis on the anal, don't miss media sage, Brian Williams, pontificating at painful length on his heartbreak:

Williams: The part of the new trend that breaks my heart is that people coming up right now don't understand that we were all trained under standards. The great blue book of standards, authored largely by Dick Salant, Richard S. Salant, the president of CBS news, continues to be, I think, the best North Star in our industry for what I do, along with things like the AP style book for questions that pertain to that. What saddens me about this new trend is that people perhaps may not know that there are rules that govern our behavior.  [and here he turns into Zen Master Brian] I choose to go using the way that Len Downy has always run a newsroom. I choose to go a step further. You know, I don't believe in things like speaking for money or ever ever ever letting political opinion seep into what I do, on duty or off. I hold these things very closely.

I was on the floor of the RC coming into the fourth night. A journalist friend came up to me and he said, "Did you hear? SRT beat the three networks last night." And I said, "I have no idea what you're talking about." And he said, "State Run Television. Fox." This was a first time for me. I had never heard that term. Obviously, a derogatory term for Fox. His meaning was, of course, that the faithful now have their network. A network that matches their ideology. And I've heard it said that this is a bad thing, these boutique, kind of customized networks. To wake up every morning and turn on the network that already agrees with you. Think of what that will do to the human mind and American discourse in the United States over time.

You could already argue that the internet - that now if you have a modem and an opinion, in many cases, you're a journalist.  And is the internet good or bad for the discourse? Is it making us feifdoms of one in our own homes with our computers? Is it counter to the idea of the town square approach to journalism that a lot of us believe the founders both of the nation and of journalism had in mind?  Part of my job is to ask questions so I'll leave you with those to ponder.

Ponder away, my children.  Just don't get all pushy with the answers because it's not their job to listen.

Comments

[Thomas Nephew]

I actually caught some of that bizarre little Snow/Gregory/Wolffe get-together online last night (I have a CSPAN feed set up on my home page). Clips don't do it justice; it was like watching Colonial Club-type Brits in the Raj telling eachother "Bloody wogs!" "By jove! Never a truer word, Jenkins; never a truer word."

Re Bumiller, I imagine she's wondering these days what the heck she was thinking. I've got to think a book about Condi Rice -- and written by Bumiller to boot -- will sell about 3 dozen copies by the time it's published. I sure hope the advance was small, too.

[eRobin]

I was thinking how she hit the jackpot subject-wise since so much is happening to the fabulous Condi right now. As for people wanting to read it - not so much. If know Bumiller, she's going to hit all the personal stuff and the book will center aroud the amazing womanosity of Madame Secretary more than anything else. One long People Magazine article for college graduates.