Ritual De La Habitual
By Mitch Berg
The big problem – well, one of many big problems – with the institutional media is that for most of recent memory they have regarded themselves almost as a band of monks from the high priesthood of truth and knowledge, as if “journalism” is some sort of aescetic monastic calling, a pledge to an ink-stained life for the greater good of the world around one.
And like all monastic orders, there are rituals and traditions:
Helen Thomas wasn’t celebrated as a journalist so much as a monument to journalism’s historical legacy. She kept her front-row seat, he column, and her steady stream of awards for no reason other than she always had. And the reverence she inspired had little to do with her work and far more to do with the political media’s sense of institutional self-importance. Helen Thomas wasn’t a very good columnist, but she was a living symbol of a media age past—and the press corps couldn’t let her go.
But there’s a sinister side to this. “Journalism” is desperately trying to save itself. The free market is a tough row to hoe, but some news operations have managed to slim down and find a business model that works.
But the Federal Trade Commission is proposing buffing up Big Journalism with lots and lots of government money – building on this sense of pseudo-religious sentiment:
These days, journalists have successfully inculcated a similar sense of sentimental reverence for the media in the federal government. As the media transitions into the digital age and old business models look increasingly shaky, both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are investigating how the government can prop up journalistic institutions edging past their prime. And the spirit that drove Washington’s press corps to endlessly celebrate Helen Thomas despite her thoroughly mediocre output is the same one driving these agencies’ efforts.
A recent discussion draft from the FTC titled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism” is only the latest example. Its implicit view is that because the news industry of old is struggling, the federal government needs to look for ways to prop it up. The paper starts with the assumption that, thanks to shrinking newspaper revenues and staff, there now exist “gaps in news coverage” (though aside from a brief mention of reduced reporting staff to file statehouse and Capitol reports—many of which were redundant—it hardly makes an attempt to spell out what these gaps are). And although the report admits that some of those alleged gaps are being filled by upstart online news organizations, it warns that they are small, and may not be capable of filling the gaps, whatever they are, on their own.
The answer, naturally, is socialism:
Naturally, that’s where the FTC comes in. The paper contains a raft of proposals to subsidize, sponsor, support and otherwise “save” the news business. Not all of them are rotten: Increased government transparency and anti-trust exemptions are both ideas worth considering. But most of the ideas seek to include local grants for investigative reporting, national funds for local reporting, increased subsidies for existing public broadcasting, and even a journalism division of AmeriCorps to “ensure that young people who love journalism will stay in the field”—as if what journalism lacks is a supply of earnest, doe-eyed youngsters indebted to a federally-run program for their careers. These aren’t proposals to save journalism so much as to save the romance of journalism—the same romance that kept Helen Thomas secure in her press room seat—and to pay for that romance with taxpayer dollars.
The answer should be a Constitutional amendment ensuring separation between journalism and government.
June 10th, 2010 at 9:39 am
The concept of government sponsored journalism is so fundamentally ridiculous and anathema to the principles of journalism as to be laughable. And I would at least chuckle if it didn’t so happen that I’m currently reading an amazing new biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and I just finished the chapter that detailed just how the Lutheran Church in Germany was co-opted by the National Socialists into a State Church diametrically opposed to the principles of Christianity, yet still proclaiming itself “Christian” (albeit “German Christian”).
I’d often wondered in the past how this happened; how did much of the leadership of the church and the congregations go along with this? The book – “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” – describes it thouroughly, including how so many were enthralled by Hitler and thought their objectives aligned with his, and that the changes were for the best, while others just went along because it was easier. Some were enchanted, some were intimidated but the result was something almost unrecognizable. When the head of the State is head of the Church – or the head of the Media – then truth is crucified and our own redemption, if not survival, is threatened.
If we get another rainy weekend this week I may have to develop the similarities further in a post on my blog. Btw, Mitch, for your historical series: the 76th anniversary of the Night of the Long Knives is coming up the end of this month.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:40 am
as if “journalism” is some sort of aescetic monastic calling, a pledge to an ink-stained life for the greater good of the world around one.
I remember a few of those guys back in school and in my first newspaper gig. I think they start out thinking that way to justify the ridiculously low pay journalists make in the early years, and then it just kind of becomes ingrained in their long-term thinking.
Myself, I went into mass communications/journalism because my existing credits just happened to tranfer best into that field. I fully intended to bolt into marketing and PR as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Things didn’t work out EXACTLY as planned, but I bet I make more money now than I would have if I stuck to newspapers.
I hope so. . .
June 10th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Eat your heart out, Dennis Miller: Jonah Goldberg’s I-Hate-Helen rant from the Goldberg File (not sure how you can subscribe).
June 11th, 2010 at 6:43 am
What we need are more bloggers sitting in their bedrooms and “commenting” on the ever dwindling amount of news that gets produced these days! Yeah!
June 11th, 2010 at 7:28 am
No, what we REALLY need is journalists wearing government MiniTruth uniforms.
I’m thinking red tunics with gold braid, black pantaloons and black leather shako hats crowned with ostrich plumes.
They can have a parade every year, on J-Day.
June 11th, 2010 at 7:52 am
A stupid idea, of course. Though Angryclown thinks the Mitchketeers would have eagerly signed on in the last administration.
June 11th, 2010 at 7:59 am
No, angryclown, we prefer our pajamas.
June 11th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Would I like to get paid for blogging? I’d jump on an extra $20 with both feet right now. (And thanks to all who’ve contributed to the blog’s fund over the years, btw!)
Would I do it for the government? Even a conservative one? Nah.