You are herecontent / Watergate's Lost Legacy

Watergate's Lost Legacy


Investigative journalism is dead; long live investigative journalism.
By David J. Sirota, American Prospect, 6/2/05

Upon the news this week that Watergate source �Deep Throat� had come forward, CNN's Judy Woodruff waxed nostalgic about the golden era of muckraking journalism.

"It is so hard, I think, for young people we know who work here at CNN and other news organizations to even imagine what Watergate was like," she said. "To have a White House come undone, an administration come undone, because of some news reporting." Coming from a lead reporter at one of America's largest cable networks, it was truly a sad commentary.

First and foremost, it was sad because she was right -- American journalism today has lost its confrontational, hold-their-feet-to-the-fire attitude that gave it a reputation as our government's fourth check and balance. Young reporters can't imagine what that kind of reporting really is because they've never experienced it.

Certainly there was Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but those were cheap attempts by journalists to recreate Watergate without actually doing the real investigative work. They were pathetic journalists' attempt to grab the sizzle of scandal without doing the hard work that uncovers serious crimes like Watergate. Though there are certainly some very fine investigative reporters left, they have become a rare breed, usually replaced by blow-dried blowhards who spend more time sucking up to power than challenging it.

It was also sad because Woodruff, one of CNN's senior reporters, had the nerve to complain about the decline of journalism, even though she and her television news colleagues have had a big hand in that decline. Though Beltway insiders lament the termination of Inside Politics, that show -- like most others -- has cheapened journalism and made politics into a melodramatic soap opera. For every occasional story that delves into real issues like health care, jobs, and stagnating wages, we get hundreds of stories that are nothing more than "he said, she said" fights between dueling suits, the reporter never once taking the time to delve into the issues that are actually being discussed.

Interestingly, one of the much-lauded reporters who broke Watergate, Bob Woodward, actually epitomizes these problems. More than any other, his career charts the decline of the national press corps to the laughingstock it is today. Here was a tough-nosed reporter who made his name doing the gritty, unglamorous work that eventually exposed one of the most egregious abuses of power in American history. But instead of using the credibility he had earned from Watergate to build a career exposing corruption, he quickly dove into the Beltway culture, where that kind of thing is looked down upon. He used his fame to suck up to those in power, and then write books like Bush at War that simply told power's story, ultimately becoming just another bloviating cardboard cutout on the pundit circuit.

To be sure, Woodward's sad story is just one in a constellation of similar tales, and certainly he can't be blamed for all of journalism's current failings. But make no mistake about it: Woodward's pathetic trajectory was a very powerful model for young journalists. He helped legitimize the practice of discarding what journalism should be about (investigation and challenging power) in favor of exactly what journalism should never be about (glamour, propaganda, and genuflection).

And we see the results today. We have top White House reporters like The New York Times ' Elisabeth Bumiller spending much of their time writing doozies like the one about what's on the president's iPod, or the one about how the president's butler has a good sense of humor and a nice hairdo. But when it came to asking tough questions of the president in the run-up to war, Bumiller said, the press was "very deferential" because "no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time." When the subject was the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, The Washington Post could quote the Beltway's top pundits frothing at the mouth about Bill Clinton�s deceptions. "I resent deeply being constantly lied to," said Hardball's Chris Matthews. Yet these same reporters have been for the most part silent about being constantly lied to about the war in Iraq.

Toward the end of her segment, Woodruff did (inadvertently) manage to offer a silver lining. "In the beginning [of Watergate]," she said, "the reporting was considered blasphemous, practically." That offers us at least a glimmer of hope. Yes, much of the national press corps today is a joke. But it doesn't have to be. The courageous reporters, while rare, are out there (Sy Hersh, Bill Moyers, David Cay Johnston, to name a few). And when they break stories, they face the kind of establishment scorn that Woodruff was talking about. But that scorn is usually a sign that they are touching a nerve in the power structure, which is exactly what they are supposed to do. It means a reporter is having far more of an impact than simply using cocktail-party connections to get on television.

That is the journalistic legacy of Watergate, too often forgotten. It is the lesson of Watergate Woodward, not Bush at War Woodward, and one we should pray comes back into style sometime soon -- for the sake of our country and our democracy.

David Sirota, a Northwestern University journalism-school graduate, is finishing a book for Random House's Crown Publishers about the middle-class economic squeeze. He was previously a top strategist for Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer's successful campaign in 2004, and the chief spokesman for Democrats on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee. He lives in Helena, Montana.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9816

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/people-i-read-and-listen-to.html

The People I Read and Listen To

When I point out problems with today's national press corps, I always try to let it be known that there are still some good reporters out there. And after my American Prospect piece today, some folks have asked me which journalists/publications I read and trust. So in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I figured I would follow up my media criticism with a list of some journalists/publications I think are actually doing a terrific job. They aren't perfect, but they are some of the best we've got.

Remember, this is a list of reporters, not opinion writers, and in no special order. These are the people/publications I stop to regularly read not because they agree with my political perspective (many of them don't), but because they cover the serious issues:

- Knight Ridder's Washington, D.C. Bureau: no news organization come close to the kind of serious reporting these guys do on the most important issues.

- Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker: No matter what criticism he gets, he still breaks real stories.

- David Cay Johnston, New York Times: The best tax reporter in America. Period.

- Daniel Gross, Slate: Always has the incisive take on the days economic news that other reporters miss.

- Bill Moyers/PBS Frontline: This one doesn't need an explanation.

- Ellen Schultz, Wall Street Journal: The best reporter in America when it comes to the unglamourous yet critical task of covering retirement/pension issues.

- Matt Taibbi, New York Press/Rolling Stone; Frank Rich, New York Times; James Wolcott, Vanity Fair: These are the few big journalists willing to write honestly about how big of a joke the national media has become.

- Tom Edsall, Washington Post: One of the few who actually takes reporting on the connection between money and politics seriously, and doesn't treat it like a punchline.

- Dana Milbank, Washington Post: Where other reporters cower, he has never, ever been afraid to challenge the White House.

- Connie Schultz, Cleveland Plain Dealer: She won a Pulitzer Prize for taking on the powers that be. Enough said.

- David Rogers, Wall Street Journal; Dan Morgan, Washington Post: These guys are among the last to do the kind of hardscrabble reporting on Capitol Hill politics that gives people a glimpse into what really goes on in Congress.

- Businessweek Magazine: People who need accurate information-based news in order to make a living aren't interested in what's on the President's Ipod, and they aren't interested in self-important punditry. Businessweek caters to people who want real news, about real issues.

- Ron Brownstein, LA Times: I don't always love what he has to say, but he is probably the best-informed television pundit/news analyst out there. Yes, he (like most in his genre) is a little too obsessed with the horse race of it all - but I respect him because he's serious about doing his homework and he always provides a wealth of information.

- Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: I have trouble watching television chat shows anymore because they have become so inane - but Olbermann does his best to cut through the crap and tell it like it is.

- William Greider, The Nation: Putting aside the fact that I agree with his political slant, it's hard for anyone to argue that this guy is not a great writer. You may not agree with him, or you may always agree with him, but he's always interesting, and he's always covering the most important issues.

- Michael Hersh, Newsweek: While Iskioff gets most of the headlines (and is a good reporter, despite the recent flap), Hersh doesn't get as much ink. But he's a very good reporter - especially his stuff about national security issues.

- Ted Koppel, Nightline: Again, no description needed. He asks tough questions. Period.

- Bill O'Reilly, Fox News: JUST KIDDING! (Did you really think I was serious?)

This is by no means a comprehensive list - it's really just off the top of my head. But as I put it together, I realized something quite interesting. Most of these reporters are issue/beat reporters or investigative journalists, meaning they have a specific ISSUE focus of their work. That stands in contrast to the general "political" reporters whose main focus is covering the horse race and actually IGNORING issues. It is these "political" reporters where the problem really lies - these people have no expertise in any ISSUE at all. Their expertise is on the soap opera. And its a big part of the why much of today's national political coverage is vapid.

To be sure, there are many more decent journalists working in the trenches. And that's really the larger point than a list. Few argue that the national press corps as a whole has done great damage to American journalism and to our political system. But in every barrel of rotten apples, there are still some good ones. And they should give us hope that things still can change for the better.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.