« You Can't Make This Stuff Up | Main | Divorce Rates »

November 01, 2006

What's Wrong With The Press Corps?

This. Greenwald comments:

Apparently, the most traumatizing and horrifying thing that could ever happen to Mark Halperin is for Bush followers like Hugh Hewitt to think he's a liberal. It is self-evidently very important to Halperin -- on an emotional and deeply personal level -- to demonstrate that he is one of them, or at least not one of those liberals. To achieve this, he made an extraordinary vow to Sean Hannity when trying to win Hannity's approval, in which he pledged that the media would spend the next two weeks compensating for all of their anti-conservative sins over the past decades, and now he is engaged in a truly debased and highly emotional crusade to obtain Hugh Hewitt's affection.

I really question whether someone who has obviously made it such a high priority to obtain a very personal form of right-wing absolution can possibly exercise appropriate news judgment. If Halperin is willing to expend this much time and energy and shower Hewitt with such gushing praise -- and if he's willing to make such a public spectacle of himself when doing so -- all in order to convince Hewitt that he isn't liberal, won't that goal rather obviously affect Halperin's news coverage? Isn't there something extremely unseemly about the political director of ABC News engaging in such an intense campaign to win the approval of one of the most blindly partisan, extremist Bush followers in the country?

It's not just unseemly, it's unprofessional. The point of journalism, of punditry, of analysis, is that it's independent. That doesn't mean it's not ideological, or even totally non-partisan, but that it's not written to attract external approval. If I were always writing to please the DCCC, or the AFL-CIO, or my editor Harold Meyerson, or my libertarian friends, or my hawkish family members, or my readers, anyone else, my work would be useless. It wouldn't be honest. It couldn't be interesting. It shouldn't be trusted.

That's a tough line to walk. For many in the liberal media, they did it by attacking the very actors and constituencies they would be assumed to support. They publicly distanced themselves, degrading the fairness of their coverage in the process, but retaining a sense of their own independence. It is now a matter of public record, however, that Mark Halperin is writing with an eye towards Hugh Hewitt's approval. Everything he writes must be judged through that lens. Much of it must be discarded for that reason. He's no longer a journalist, can no longer protect his pretensions of intellectual independence. He's no longer, if he ever was, worth reading.

November 1, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

We should thank him for being open about the fact that ABC is going pursue the "Fox Jr." strategy; at least now our pols can't claimed to be surprised about it.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Nov 1, 2006 11:51:11 AM

i called hewitt last week to let him know that despite his bogus claim, andrew sullivan destroyed him in their interview.

halperin's interview was shameful. he let hugh walk him around like a dog and yesterday, halrerin calle upset that hh called him "very liberal." as if.

halperin further proved his lack of insight by telling hh he was usually factual in his claims.

like most of the lap dogs of the press, they bend over to show liars like hewitt that they're objective but only end breaking their back.

Posted by: christian | Nov 1, 2006 11:53:05 AM

To paraphrase Josh Marshall -- I love the sound of republicans whining. It sounds...like victory.

Posted by: swoosh | Nov 1, 2006 11:55:34 AM

The Post's Len Downie had a similarly bizarre interview in the Guardian a few months back, where he insisted he didn't have any political opinions and that this was a good thing. He didn't display the creepy desperation, sycophancy and naivity that Halperin does, though. Hewitt's whole schtick is to conduct hackish interviews of people and then denounce their insufferable liberalism. What exactly was Halperin expecting?

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Nov 1, 2006 11:55:43 AM

Hey,I'm no fan of Hewitt, but:
look, the British press is far more alive, interesting and influential than the US press seems to be, AND the newspapers usually wear the ideological views on their sleeve. The sky doesn't fall if you do that. I don't read the WashPo any longer after they became apologists for the Administration. They should cut the independent/non-partisan crap and say they're a Republican rag.

Posted by: Howard | Nov 1, 2006 11:56:40 AM

But ... but ... but Halperin abstains from voting in presidential elections! So he's really impartial, and you're just being a biased liberal!

Posted by: Zero | Nov 1, 2006 12:00:16 PM

I've never read a more servile, self-destructive communication publicly made by anyone, journalist or not than Halperin's response to Hewitt. It is clear to me that Halperin needs expert professional help with his self-concept. His attempts to free himself from the heritage of his family is plainly disgusting, and revelatory as well of the fucked-up scion of a prominent political family - a scion that can't be trusted with ANYTHING resembling political judgement because of his internal psychological disorder.

To borrow from Brad DeLong: Fire Hewitt. Fire him now before he further pollutes the politcal journalism that is his job responsibility: "Political Director of ABC News". What a laughable pairing of responsibility and emotional disorder.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 1, 2006 12:04:20 PM

This is really a textbook example of the "battered spouse" analogy that gets thrown around occasionally about wimpy Dems or liberal-leaning people who knuckle under to GOP bullying. Anyone with half a brain knows that Hewitt is an incorrigible hack, and that anything short of unconditional surrender to his own agenda is never going to be enough for him. And yet Halperin can't help himself from LITERALLY grovelling at Hewitt's feet.

Posted by: Haggai | Nov 1, 2006 12:06:26 PM

correction to mmy comments above: instead of "Fire Hewitt", I obviously meant to say "Fire Halperin".

(If I really wanted to say something about Hewitt, it would be along the lines of "Throw Hewitt in the Fire".)

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 1, 2006 12:14:39 PM

correction to mmy comments above: instead of "Fire Hewitt", I obviously meant to say "Fire Halperin".

(If I really wanted to say something about Hewitt, it would be along the lines of "Throw Hewitt in the Fire".)

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 1, 2006 12:15:05 PM

correction to mmy comments above: instead of "Fire Hewitt", I obviously meant to say "Fire Halperin".

(If I really wanted to say something about Hewitt, it would be along the lines of "Throw Hewitt in the Fire".)

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 1, 2006 12:15:48 PM

I think Halperin just wants to get on the right-wing gravy train. He sees the drivel being put out by Coulter, O'Reilly & company and says, "I can write as good as these morons, where are my millions?"

He's sold out his journalistic pricipals for the money.

Posted by: Ed | Nov 1, 2006 12:22:38 PM

The dream of objectivity will always fade into the logic of "neutrality."
But most of you defend objectivity as an ideal, even though you'd never defend it a courtroom. You'd never want an 'objective' defense attorney, would you?

The press is part of the system, both formal and informal, of checks and balances in a democracy. It doesn't represent 'truth' any more than the Senate, the Administration or the Courts. It is the job of each to defend it's prerogatives within a formal adversarial system. "Truth" or "Justice" or "Good Government" is merely the desired result.

Your Quiet American idealism is charming, but its the cause of all this shit, not the cure. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all of you are full of that.

Posted by: Seth Edenbaum | Nov 1, 2006 12:30:30 PM

What's weird is that Halperin would abase himself so publicly. We know that the Right's top brass has excellent communications among each other. If Halperin had done his begging in private, the word would have gotten to those people quickly, and we, the viewers, wouldn't have time to assemble the clues before Election Day. Instead, it was all played out on TV.

I'm reminded of the U.S.S. Pueblo crew and other American POWs who agree to pose for propaganda photos so they can make rebellious gestures the captors don't understand. Is Halperin crying for help?

Posted by: Stuart Eugene Thiel | Nov 1, 2006 12:32:06 PM

I'm going to be contrarian here, so brace yourself.

I read the entirety of Halperin's interview with Hewitt. Put aside the question of why anyone would want to spend three hours talking to Hewitt, for the moment. But also stipulate that Hewitt is far, far above average for a conservative radio guy: he reads the books, he's smart, he's facile. He has manners.

All that said: I thought Halperin handled himself well. He dealt with Hewitt's dozens of dark accusations, that he's a weird kind of Alger Hiss type mole in the media, with far more patience than I would have.

As for Halperin's "desperation to please": he said that most journalists are liberal.

That may be annoying to hear, but it's true. I know a lot of journalists. All of them are liberal in outlook.

He said that most conservatives no longer trust what he calls Old Media.

Also true.

He said he wants to create a kind of journalism that everybody, including conservatives, can trust. Most of us might say, "Well, the problem is the damn conservatives lying about the media!"

Halperin takes responsibility, says, no, it's something we have to do, a way in which we have to improve.

You can disagree with him, I guess, as to whether it's possible to create a kind of journalism so rooted in fact and fairness that people from every political persuasion can rely on it.

But I find it hard to get mad at him for expressing that wish.

Okay, go ahead and kill me now.

Posted by: Yagur | Nov 1, 2006 12:35:12 PM

The dream of objectivity will always fade into the logic of 'neutrality' and then into passivity.
Halperin is not an idelogue, he's just -only- pathetic.


better

Posted by: Seth Edenbaum | Nov 1, 2006 12:42:40 PM

Did Halperin actually deny being a liberal, or only claim that Hewitt had no basis for calling him one? He seems to be doing an odd dance around it in the quotes Greenwald gives. Reminds me of when I sent an email to the host of the local public radio talk show suggesting that he and the staff there are liberal politically and religiously and that this affects their programming. He wrote back with a non-denial denial, in which instead of saying how many were not liberal, just said I might be surprised about their religious and political views. Of course I haven't been surprised, and he later acknowledged his own liberal views (only to later ask me why I thought he was a liberal!). Journalists seem to reflexively try to avoid being labeled liberal or conservative.

For many in the liberal media, they did it by attacking the very actors and constituencies they would be assumed to support. They publicly distanced themselves, degrading the fairness of their coverage in the process, but retaining a sense of their own independence.

I undoubtedly missed this mass movement.

Everything he writes must be judged through that lens. Much of it must be discarded for that reason.

I don't see how the last part follows. I think journalists usually try to hide their biases and personal agendas, but the fact that they have them doesn't entail you should discard what they say.

I see Yagur's comments here and think they explain a few things better than Greenwald's ravings.

Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 1, 2006 12:48:21 PM

This is a ridiculous argument! "I am independent piss ant, unlike all those in the liberal media"? Is that what we are against? Let's recap the whole "liberal media" myth. First, we have people believing that they objectively report on the news. Then they realize that there is a human element there and that the media has a certain responsibility to its audience--thank you, Joseph McCarthy, for making this need glaringly obvious. In response, having been exposed, the liars and cheats are up in arms, declaring that by siding with those who think them to be liars and cheats, the media has lost its independence. Never mind the fact that, to that point, the media had always been harsh on liars and cheats irrespectively of their ideological underpinnings (except when the media was specifically on the payroll of such liars and cheats).

This lie--accusations of the "liberal media"--has been repeated for about 50 years. Initially, it was dismissed as rantings of the lunatic fringe. Eventually, some of the weaker people in the audience succumbed to the unrelenting propaganda and started doubt the independence of the media. Eventually, this skepticism turned into distrust.

In response, the media started going out of its way to show its criticism of the "liberals". This ranged from POV discrimination by blocking legitimate stories that might have been perceived to contain a liberal bias to viewpoint balancing by offering utterly lunatic opinions by a radical minority (sometimes a minority of one) to "balance" the otherwise inescapable conclusions that a particular story's facts slanted the expected outcome to one side. This "objectivity", of course, did wonders for expertise--expertise became equivalent to opinion, all the while the original objectors raged a war against "relativism".

So, now that the "liberal media" goes out of its way in its deference to the radical Right, we get a clown like Klein proclaim his "independence" precisely because he is free to be beholden to ideological interests. This makes about as much sense as calling Rush Limbaugh a "journalist". Thanks, Klein! I must have been so ignorant on the subject! [What a weasel!]

Posted by: buck turgidson | Nov 1, 2006 12:52:23 PM

He said he wants to create a kind of journalism that everybody, including conservatives, can trust. Most of us might say, "Well, the problem is the damn conservatives lying about the media!"

Well, yes. There's nothing wrong with wanting to provide people with solid journalism that most of them can trust. The problem is in bending over backwards to convince Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity that this is what you're doing. Any attempt at placating those hacks is disgraceful.

Posted by: Haggai | Nov 1, 2006 12:54:01 PM

Sanpete the Republican, please show you're not just a GOP smear artist. Cite exactly where you think Greenwald is wrong about Halperin. (crickets chirping)

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Nov 1, 2006 12:56:49 PM

Did Halperin actually deny being a liberal, or only claim that Hewitt had no basis for calling him one?

At some point, strenuous efforts to demonstrate to an antagonist that one doesn't fall into a hated category demonstrate either shared hatred of people in the category or (really a subset, I suppose) self-hatred. It doesn't much matter, as the effect is the same: the Foxification of ABC News to better gain the trust of the Hewitts of the world.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Nov 1, 2006 1:12:14 PM

I don't think that regular readers of The Note should be surprised by the "liberal media" generalizations that Halperin threw into his Hannity and Hewitt interviews, particularly when he's trying to sell a book to their listeners.

The problem is that people like Hannity and Hewitt are thrilled to hear the generalizations and won't ask the next logical question: What are the specific stories where the liberal bias of a reporter resulted in libel, slander, incorrect information or unfair "slanting" that improperly affected a particular election. Start with your employer, ABC News.

Posted by: Chalmers | Nov 1, 2006 1:14:31 PM

He said he wants to create a kind of journalism that everybody, including conservatives, can trust.

But the only kind of journalism that the current crop of right-wingers would trust would look like what's practiced in a banana republic. Talk radio and Free Republic and World Net Daily and Hot Air aren't the right's models for commentary -- they're the right's models for straight journalism. That's what they want in place of The New York Times and The Washington Post and CNN and AP and Reuters and the three major networks. That's what Halperin just doesn't get.

Posted by: Zero | Nov 1, 2006 1:15:59 PM

That the media tends to be more liberal than average has been shown by surveys of journalists many times. Not a myth. To what extent and in what ways this would result in biased reporting is a further question. Just on its face, we should expect it to have some effect, but journalists do try to control for it.

I don't blame Halperin for trying to establish a medium that all sides can feel comfortable with. I think the balkanization of media is a serious problem, with people increasingly tuning in to what they want to hear and not understanding other views. To make his case Halperin might logically want to appear on conservative shows and try to convince the audiences and hosts to win them over to what he considers a better alternative. Maybe someone else has a better idea than going to where the people are to make your case.

Phoenix, I call Greenwald's account "ravings" because he exaggerates and colors with his own spin at almost every point. The quotes he gives don't support, in my view, his characterization of Halperin's behavior as "craven." He doesn't show Halperin to be claiming he isn't a liberal, he doesn't show Halperin to be traumatized, or even highly emotional. Greenwald's own prose on this is far more emotional than Halperin's.

At some point, strenuous efforts to demonstrate to an antagonist that one doesn't fall into a hated category demonstrate either shared hatred of people in the category or (really a subset, I suppose) self-hatred.

Really? That's a psychological analysis that I can't follow. Why wouldn't it just show that one isn't in that category and believes it's important? In any case, as I said, it isn't clear to me that he was trying to convince Hewitt he isn't a liberal so much as to convince him he doesn't have any good reason to conclude he's a liberal. I think his behavior is better explained by what Yagur pointed out.

Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 1, 2006 1:44:26 PM

He said he wants to create a kind of journalism that everybody, including conservatives, can trust.

That can't happen. The right-wing doesn't attack the media when it gets things wrong, it attacks them when they tell the truth.

Posted by: Avedon | Nov 1, 2006 2:02:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.