There is something unnervingly chilling about the sad sack attempt at congratulating Jon Stewart that appeared in Monday’s New York Times. The article, in the Business section no less, lauds Stewart’s advocacy of the recently passed health care bill for people who worked on the pile in that terrible Autumn of 2001. It approvingly quotes a journalist, a professor and even the mayor of New York. It even grants that highest of journalistic praise, mentioning sainted names like Cronkite and Murrow, the latter right in the headline. For all its praise of Stewart though, the article is an intellectual mess and ends up damning the very actions it purports to cheer. It’s like a letter written by child, complete with backwards letters, that says “And god bles dady for not sigereting my ouch spots anymor”.
For starters, the baby elephant in the room is the way the article takes for granted the haloed journalistic history that has become as much a part of Boomer-era nostalgia as June Cleaver vacuuming in high heels and cars with tail fins. In this case, it means the truth-y facts that Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow smote Lyndon Johnson and Joe McCarthy from the sky. Though probably based on facts, the reality is a little more complicated.
The big momma elephant, however, is the one that doesn’t even get mentioned. The New York Times doesn’t compare a man to Murrow if they’re trying to say what a bastard he is. Murrow is a god in their world; his name is only spoken when journalists feel like penitentially flogging themselves. Daniel Ellsberg is a similarly regarded good guy, he spoke truth to power, helped them win a landmark Supreme Court case, and endured brutal and illegal attacks from the Nixon White House. Inconveniently, Ellsberg is still alive and has given his blessing to Wikileaks publicly enough that journalists have to grudgingly mention it. With Murrow they can just put the boldface name in big fonts and coax out whatever quotes they need from consultants, professors and other willing subjects. The man himself cannot respond.
But in comparing a comedian to one of their idols, it ignores the obvious implication:
Though he might prefer a description like “advocacy satire,” what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night — and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill — usually goes by the name “advocacy journalism.”
Loosely translated from news-speak that means “the comedian is better at our jobs than we are”. It is a whopping admission of failure that is in no way mitigated by adding the weaselly word “advocacy” in scare quotes.
“Advocacy” is a dirty word inside the journalism integrity fortress, which rests on the neutralist solid rock available. That their beige flag has been openly taken advantage of by people who are anti-science, anti-fact, and – literally – anti-reality doesn’t matter to them.
Acknowledging the irony of playing the “both sides” card while decrying that very thing, it does need to be noted that all three of those pejoratives can be used to describe the woo lovers of the left who think you can cure diseases with Vitamin D and enemas. The overwhelming majority, in everything from anti-evolution religious people to oil friendly global warming deniers, comes from the right however.
That last point is especially telling. I used to be a lot more optimistic about climate change. I figured once it became obvious how much money there is to be made from clean (or at least cleaner) energy, rich people would want in on the action and get the government to change the rules in their favor. But with the partial exception of T. Boone Pickens, no one from the relevant industries has stepped forward. This is despite the fact that they have the political influence to get the government to pay them billions in subsidies and the engineering expertise to take advantage of them.
At least part of the reason for that, and certainly the reason there isn’t more public outcry, is the hypocritical double standard on “advocacy journalism” at places like the Times. The responders bill, which is a lot more popular than climate change legislation, gets much better treatment. In spite of its studied neutrality of tone, the article is clearly written with the assumption that the passage of the bill was a good thing – look at all those glowing quotes and comparisons! And why shouldn’t it be? The bill is overwhelmingly popular, and the Times is a hometown paper for these guys!
But for something like climate change, or a dozen other topics where the facts are in (if often denied by the right), there is less popularity, and far more “neutral” coverage. It’s pretty ballsy of the Times to spend twelve hundred words praising an ideal while tacitly admitted that they no longer live up to it. The Times doesn’t even consider the story a serious one, they thought it was cute. Instead of a mea culpa from the editorial page, it was a media trend piece. August media institutions treating their sacred ideals as a novelty practiced by the court jester, I don’t know what Murrow would have thought about that, and I won’t presume to put words into his mouth. But speaking for myself, I’d be real surprised if he thought it was a good idea.*
*Not, though, as surprised as I’d be just to hearing from a dead man.
