JC: Who’ll Speak Truth To Power?

35 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Cis on March 09 at 1:55 p.m.

  I know this does not answer your question….

  but what almost drives me over the edge is the fact these people (because I am sure there are women in the mix as well) still have their jobs…
  Why aren’t they treated like emblezzers, or fired for poor business performance? From the little guy up…

• 

  Aliasjax on March 09 at 2:20 p.m.

  I hope blogs and online reporting does a better job than the print and broadcast media have done over the last 20 years or so…

• 

  Sisyphus on March 09 at 2:26 p.m.

  Not everybody has a job that neatly fits into your nine to five preconception Cis. I certainly don’t charge my clients for time shooting the breeze with you or they would justifiably can me.

  “Do you think blogs and online editions can replace the declining newspaper industry as media that will hold government and other powers that be accountable for their actions?”—No I do not. I think journalism as a profession is necessary to a functional democracy. But the profession has been steadily eroding.

• 

  Transplanted_Texan on March 09 at 3:04 p.m.

  No one is as good at this as investigative reporters in the tradition of Sinclair and Woodward. Reporters can report in blog format as well as they can newspapers, but without the resources of the newspaper and also-decining network news industries, we’re sunk.

  As long as we’re talking about “speaking truth to power,” though, Iwould say that in that rubric, the truth does have a role. Here’s a quote from the Episcopal BIshop of New Hampshire, whom I interviewed for a school paper last year (interview here):

  “I don’t believe the church lives up to its counter-cultural nature or its counter-cultural mission as much as it should, but when it does it will undoubtedly be criticized. I’ll give you an example. Shouldn’t the church be critiquing the recent economic meltdown in terms of the values that were bought into by most everyone around the world? Greed, get rich quick, make a lot of money no matter what, executive level compensation, etc etc. You know, the church has something to say about all those things, or should have something to say about all those things. It’s very easy to blame Wall Street for greed, but we were the ones who had our 401k money in the stock market, demanding a greater and greater profit or else we would move to a different mutual fund. So we’re all complicit. What I wonder is whether the church will have the courage to question the culture in that way.”

  This applies to politicians just as much as it does corporate barons, I think.

• 

  riggs on March 09 at 3:20 p.m.

  Sinclair and Woodward? Seymour Hersch.

• 

  BlueinIdaho on March 09 at 3:24 p.m.

  Someday, I believe that Blogs and online news will replace ink and paper and perhaps do a better job at holding our elected officials to their word. The speed at which online reporting can reach people and respond is hard to beat. During the last couple of elections, the words out of a candidates mouth were spread around quicker than they could ever attempt a spin.

  While some people will continue to get their news from the TV in soundbites, those that would have been the paper readership are finding the quick pace and casual ease of online reporting to good to put down…so to speak.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 09 at 3:46 p.m.

  Blue. I agree that online reporting will do nothing but continue to grow and mature. Look at all the papers going to online only formats. Several big ones. The only problem that I see with online news delivery is that it becomes too specialized in its content. Right wingers will go to one source and the lefties will go to theirs. Both of which contain considerable bias. Not much different from TV news. Some go to Fox, others to CNN and some even msnbc. Then the polarity increases even more, imo. Too bad the news agencies can’t all be considered non-biased and provide factual, meaningful, useful news and have some degree of credibilty. That went away about the time Walter Cronkite, et al left the scene, I spose.

• 

  Whippersnapper on March 09 at 3:51 p.m.

  Banks were allowed to lend $100B on $5B in deposits so that if only 5% of loans went bad, the whole bank/lending institution imploded. Others were allowed to compile and sell risky derivative bonds based on risky loans. People were allowed to buy houses with little or nothing down and paying no principal. When the housing bubble burst, it was a row of dominoes. It was all a house of cards and it was all completely legal.

• 

  Sisyphus on March 09 at 4:00 p.m.

  Blue, unless they have an independent source of income I can’t see how bloggers can do the job. At one time I may have thought as you do but since I started blogging I definitely have more of an appreciation for the amount of work necessary to do the task especially to assure that all bases are covered.

  Riggs, my thought exactly. I was going to go into a too lengthy rant in the demise of the profession which would have begun with the degree media powerhouses co-opted journalistic ethical standards but it would take more time than I have.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 09 at 4:03 p.m.

  Whippersnapper. I think the multiples of loan ratios were higher than that. Some were leveredged 30 to 1 and I even heard up to 70 to1. Investment banks and commercial banks had different rules.

• 

  Arch_Druid on March 09 at 4:54 p.m.

  This kind of reminds of a CNN news blurb earlier in the day when a guy who as a private entrepreneur contracts out to the Dept of Homeland Security as to assisting in the securing of gvt computers complains of the lack or communication between depts plus the warrantless wiretapping that went with it, Before anyone declares aha about Obama, his beef is about 3 years old. So the problems there went back to the prior administration.

  Quite frankly, I don’t think that even with Enron as an example that GW was ready to actually address flaws that was afflicting various businesses all the way to the financial institution. Or he would have made use of a specialized task force to keep tabs on terrorism and proceeded to fund a watchful eye on the banks and etc. When the whole thing implodes, then its too late.

• 

  Sisyphus on March 09 at 5:45 p.m.

  Nick Adams showed me a perfect cartoon to illustrate one of the points.

  http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/03/03/tomo/index.html

• 

  Arch_Druid on March 09 at 6:13 p.m.

  Tom Tomorrow is always good.

• 

  Sam on March 09 at 7:50 p.m.

  Ideas I’ve offered up through the Society of Professional Journalists work I’ve done as well as in university classes that have asked me to speak and a recent talk I gave with a lawyer on public records, open meetings and technology:

  Since I’ve worked at this newspaper I’ve dug through, literally, more than 1,000 public contracts to show that a local “living wage” ordinance the City Council passed was ineffective, with only four companies following it.

  I’ve been able to hand legal letters to agencies holding public meetings to let them know the newspaper I work for disagrees with their meeting being closed to the public, and that I’m requesting time to speak on the record about this disagreement. And I’ve been able to write about it with the backing of lawyers poised and ready to fight an agency’s bad decision (it’s never come to that, though).

  I’ve combed through nine months worth of e-mail for a mayor to show he delivered favors to a company relocating in his town, and the subsequent coverage of this mayor ended with him losing re-election by what most believe is the largest margin of defeat in the history of the state.

  I have a case being considered for trial in front of the state Supreme Court to get pipeline geographic information systems data (like whether or not a person’s home is near pressure valves that are more likely to burst, etc) that oil companies don’t want the public to see, with the help of a lawyer paid for by the company I work for.

  I think that, as a blogger, I’d be able to cover some of these stories with a modicum of training or practice.

  But as that same blogger, who wasn’t a journalist and didn’t have a paycheck allowing me to work at least eight hours a day combing through records, or lawyers helping me fight public records cases I don’t think the things above would have ever happened.

  There is only so much a blogger can do. I’ve seen bloggers expose tons of stories, and those bloggers were chased by reporters from the traditional media (who probably had so much going on they couldn’t focus on this one issue like the blogger could). They’re valuable. Back in the day, bloggers simply would have been sources for journalists. But it seems the public has been told that journalists are flat-out biased in everything they do, so they can’t be trusted to be approached to look into things (I still have plenty of people coming to me each day for this, but I think less than perhaps before the advent of the Internet). Rather than coming to me with a tip, the blogger might simply complain on a blog that I’m not covering something (for the record, I cover seven cities, a county, six state legislators, a U.S. Congressman, pipeline safety and elections).

  I’m not saying these things to whine. I’m saying them to offer perspective. I absolutely love my job, but I also like to let people know that I’m merely a person.

  … more to come …

• 

  Sam on March 09 at 7:50 p.m.

  Bloggers, generally, can’t afford lawyers that newspapers can to fight open government battles with public records and meetings. The Spokesman-Review spent a pretty penny fighting case and has for years.

  Bloggers often have other jobs and don’t have the time to comb through thousands of contracts (with thousands upon thousands of pages) like a journalist can only because a journalist is paid to do just that.

  No, I personally don’t believe bloggers can replace traditional media. I do, however, think there is a natural synergy between bloggers and journalists. Part of the issue, however, is how aggressive everyone is toward journalists. Seeing as I’m on the other side, I have a hard time relating to people who think that every thing I do is biased and shouldn’t be trusted. It’s a message I disagree with, and I communicate on blogs and in our story comments with the public in order to be transparent and show people I’m simply a human being doing a job. I care about being a watchdog and holding elected officials accountable, but I’m only human. I’ll never, ever be able to catch anything and everything. It’s just not possible. And I wish people would understand that.

  It’s frustrating. But honestly, I also think there are a lot of people out there that understand just exactly what I said above. I think they appreciate the work we do. They want good, watchdog journalism combined with strong community news that lets them know about the things happening around them.

• 

  Cis on March 09 at 8:19 p.m.

  Very well said, Sam……
  I was going to say that one of the difference between bloggers and journalist… is the fact that first a jouralist has clout when he walks into a court house or meetings. Where as bloggers, are part of the audience. And some bloggers never leave their computers and get their info from the internet.
  Reporters do a lot of research and when things don’t add up, they dig deeper. They also don’t take things at face value. Where a blogger who is have only one subject or line, will settle most times for the face value. This isn’t 100% but often enough to make mistakes. Reporters can’t afford that mistake, it is their job, that is at risk.
  Myself, I don’t question the reporter being biases as so much as being bent in the wind that their paper blows. There are many newspapers who will let a reporter run with the information they get. There are some publishers who have an agenda in mind, and lead the reporter thru that door.

  But anyway, Sam, you said it a lot better than I did.

• 

  Sam on March 09 at 8:20 p.m.

  By the by, it sounds as if tomorrow will be the full last work day for P-I journalists. Sad that we’re losing another fine publication in this area.

• 

  cantyoureadthesigns on March 09 at 11:28 p.m.

  The worth, if you will, of journalism is not all good, certainly not. There is, and was, yellow journalism, pure muckraking, and then there’s the very necessary investigative journalism that is essential for a functioning democratic republic. It has been sorely diminished in recent years, and is rapidly declining.

  Much of this is not the fault of journalism, but of the over-riding omnipresent corporate entertainment culture which acts to dull our senses as to the real aspects and struggles of our community(ies) and our obligation to citizenship, not consumerism.

  Many clarion calls have been sounded, from time to time. Such as the movie “Network”. Little has changed in a positive way. A primary function of the newsmedia was, though often they failed, to be a check on government, and other large scale power structures. But then the public can scarcely be bothered to act upon that which newsmedia has revealed, as American Idol is on the tube, and they don’t watch the news, let alone engage in a meaningful way with the powers that be.

  For the most part, we’re no longer citizens. We’re consumers. Gimme gimme gimme.

  Franklin’s greatest fear may indeed come true, and the Republic will be lost.

  Sam, if can stomach reading through all the legalistic mumbo jumbo you do now as a journalist, you should have a fine career as an attorney.

  As to us directing our 401k’s to chase the best return, well, it wasn’t supposed to be like this regarding retirement security, but then, it was good for “the market” to basically eliminate defined benefit pension plans for defined (and unknown returns) contribution plans.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic