More on the Froomkin Dispute

I wrote yesterday about the Washington Post's internal spat over Dan Froomkin's 'White House Briefing' column. Jay Rosen at PressThink has now interviewed the two key players in the dispute, Dan Froomkin and National Political Editor John Harris, and presents both interviews in a lengthy question-and-answer style format. It makes for an interesting read.

What's striking to me about the interview with Harris is his candor. He makes little effort to be diplomatic or collegial. It's clear from his tone and his choice of words that he considers Froomkin to be beneath him professionally. He refers to Froomkin dismissively as a "liberal blogger" (as opposed to a columnist) and repeats his assertion that Froomkin's column, at least in its present form, dilutes the reputation of the Post. He even writes the following:

Without agreeing with the views of this
conservative blogger who took on Froomkin,
I would say his argument does not seem
far-fetched to me.

In case you're wondering, that blogger's post is entitled "Dan Froomkin, Second-Rate Hack."

What I found even more off-putting than Harris' thinly-veiled elitism, however, was his evident lack of understanding of why people criticize his profession. Harris writes:

[T]here are many people, especially
conservatives but increasingly many liberals
as well, who have no regard for the tradition
of objective journalism and view much of our
work as an ideological weapon in the guise
of neutral reporting.

This is perhaps a fair characterization of the prevailing conservative critique of mainstream journalism, but it misconceives entirely the liberal critique. I'm sure there are some liberals out there who are convinced that the media has a secret conservative agenda, but this is not the view shared by most liberal media critics. The other day Digby did a good job of summing up the liberal critique:

We [liberals] have no organized campaign and
we don't see the media as being politically
biased. We see it as abdicating its duty to sort
out the important from the trivial and connect
the dots in these confusing times that are ruled
by spin, PR and marketing on all sides.

In other words, we don't think the media is actively pursuing conservative interests; we think that the media, through its rigid adherence to certain journalistic conventions, has unintentionally contributed to the cheapening of political discourse. Put another way, unscrupulous partisans have learned to game the system. They've realized that the painfully formulaic structure of today's mainstream political reporting allows even the most dishonest and misleading talking points to gain currency.

Harris clearly does not get this:

It's not an overstatement to say that our
generation of reporters and editors is trying
vindicate the entire tradition of ideologically
neutral news in a web-driven age in which
most information is presented through
argument. Certainly the Bush White House
would be happy to have this tradition die--
it makes it easier for them to dismiss all
reporting they don't like as the work of
liberal critics.

Harris could not be more wrong. Conservatives already dismiss all the reporting they don't like as the work of liberal critics. They've been doing this for over two decades and to great effect. In fact, it is this very allegation that has led political reporters to adhere so religiously to a format in which accuracy is routinely sacrificed in the name of "balance," and neutrality is valued above even truth. What a sad irony it is that Harris thinks these journalistic conventions make life more difficult for the White House. The truth is that the White House's political strategy entirely depends on this style of reporting. The key to Karl Rove's political success was his realization that he could count on mainstream journalists--who now fear, above all, the dreaded 'liberal bias' charge--to present almost any talking point, no matter how ludicrous, in a dueling narrative format free from any independent editorial judgment. Fear of the bias charge has essentially tied reporters hands behind their backs, making them unwilling or unable to do more than present differing narratives. The beauty of this strategy for the White House is that it's self-reinforcing: the more conservatives yell "liberal bias," the more rigid the balanced format becomes. And it certainly doesn't help matters when people like Harris contribute to the problem by accusing colleagues of liberal bias. The reality is that the White House has absolutely no desire to do away with this system. Why should they? It has served conservative political interests remarkably well over the years. As it stands, conservatives can dismiss reporting they don't like as the work of liberal critics while at the same time using the self-imposed neutrality of the press to facilitate the spread of misinformation. And those two strategies actually reinforce one another.

As I wrote yesterday, the public would be better served by journalists who are willing "to referee the game, not just do the play-by-play. It's their reluctance to step in and call fouls that has allowed our political discourse to degenerate to its current sorry state." I realize Dan Froomkin is a columnist, not a beat reporter, but I nevertheless appreciate his willingness to step in and call at least the most obvious fouls. It's refreshing. When, in the name of neutrality, the press corps is unwilling to call a lie a lie, all truth becomes politicized, and the readers are done a terrible disservice. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating blurring the line between opinion and news. I'm suggesting that news reporters should take a more active role in enforcing some basic groundrules in political debate. Partisans are entitled to their own spin, but not their own facts.