The Twilight of the Journalism Gods

The Gray Lady issued from on high her considered judgment on the Eason Jordan Affair. Read it here. On the surface it seems to be an objective account tinged with regret but don't be fooled -- it's a bloody hatchet job aimed at the bloggy masses. Jeff Jarvis over at Buzzmachine takes the article apart and in the process shows us all how supposedly objective journalism can be subtly shaped into a condemnatory screed. Read his fisking here.

Tim Blair does his own masterful job of fisking the Gray Lady. Read it here and enjoy his handiwork.

Then go to Michelle Malkin's column in the NY Post. She surveys the reaction of the MSM to Jordan's takedown and concludes:

The only unjustified and irrational attacks on display here are the ones against
the bloggers who called on Eason Jordan to account for his words and actions.

Enough for the NYT on to the other titan, the WSJ

The WSJ takes a stance of professional solidarity defending a colleague against the bloggy masses. In an unsigned editorial they declare the whole thing to be a "kerfluffle" and conclude:

[I]t does not speak well of CNN that it apparently allowed itself to be stampeded by this Internet and talk-show crew. Of course the network must be responsive to its audience and ratings. But it has other obligations, too, chief among them to show the good judgment and sense of proportion that distinguishes professional journalism from the enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs.

No doubt this point of view will get us described as part of the "mainstream media." But we'll take that as a compliment since we've long believed that these columns do in fact represent the American mainstream. We hope readers buy our newspaper because we make grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't.

So, CNN is to be condemned not for the outrageous positions taken by Mr. Jordan or for his administrative misjudgments in the past such as the devil's pact he negotiated with Saddam Hussein in order to be allowed to maintain a Baghdad bureau, but for the fact that the nework caved in to pressure from the bloggers and the talk shows. Apparently the only criticism that is to be considered legitimate comes from within the credentialed professional community. Ordinary citizens' opinions are not to be heard and the information given them is to be strictly limited. Remember, none of the professional journalists in attendance at the Davos meeting thought that Mr. Jordan's statements should be reported outside the hall.

Then there is the characterization of the bloggers -- who are depicted as lacking maturity, good judgment, and a sense of proportion, as opposed to credentialed journalists who presumably can be counted on to display all three. It is true that there are a lot of trolls on the internet, but we must also recognize that the best commentary on the net is easily the equal of, and often superior to what appears in the MSM. Of course this is an editorial, and what the bloggy masses threaten is the editorial function. One might reasonably ask how much maturity, good judgment, and sense of proportion was exhibited by Mr. Jordan [both professionally and personally].

Tim Reid, writing in The Times [of London], understands perfectly what is going on. He describes the bloggers, not as a rabid mob bent on destruction, but as "citizen journalists." Unlike the Gray Lady he understands that bloggers inhabit all bands of the political spectrum and points out that left wing bloggers recently forced the resignation of a conservative journalist in the Gannon affair. And, unlike the WSJ he understands what is at stake -- nothing less than the credibility and integrity of our major information sources. He writes:

Mr Jordan’s departure comes after the humiliation heaped upon the veteran CBS anchorman Dan Rather after bloggers exposed flaws in National Guard documents he used in making allegations about President Bush’s Vietnam-era military service. Mr Rather was forced to retract the story in September and will step down as CBS anchor next month.

The key to both men’s fall, analysts believe, is that were it not for being exposed by the lightning-quick and unregulated blogosphere, they would have probably escaped.
The mainstream media — instinctively more reluctant to attack one of its own — may not have questioned the authenticity of the CBS documents; and without the online fury that greeted Mr Jordan’s alleged comments, the story may well have disappeared.

That is precisely the point. Professional journalism has an implied contract with the American citizenry. It is accorded special privileges and exerts great influence because it is trusted to report fairly, accurately, and objectively on the world. The assumption is, as in all meritocratic systems, that a credentialed elite can be trusted to perform impartially to serve the common good. But, when that elite is shown to be partial, serving its own particular interests, or favoring the interests of one group over another, that compact has been broken, its credibility evaporates, its privileges are circumscribed and its influence diminished. The WSJ has belatedly awakened to the danger that bloggery poses to the privileged community of credentialed journalists and has joined ranks with its peers. This is unfortunate because recent experience has shown that the institutions of mainstream journalism are very much in need of reform. But, instead of supporting such reforms as might restore the credibility of the MSM, we see professional solidarity, fear and resentment, and a closing of the ranks to resist reform. This is disappointing -- systematic resistance can turn a reform imperative into a revolution. The bloggers are not going away and the MSM is going to have to figure out how to accommodate them and work with them.

Additional notes: Andrew McCarthy over at NRO responds to the WSJ editorial here.

Jack Schafer over at Slate, rips into the WSJ for defending the indefensible.

The battle lines are beginning to form up as online journals, even those with MSM backing, take the side of the bloggers, while print and broadcast institutions, even those with online presence, defend Jordan by attacking the bloggers. Cable goes either way depending on what show you watch.

James Lileks issues a very pertinent warning:

I think the Eason Jordon case is less important than the Dan Rather case, for obvious reasons. But it seems to have produced the same amount of enthusiasm. At some point this amount of glee is going to be applied towards someone who might actually turn out to be innocent. What then? Well, it'll kill the credibilty of those who led the charge, and help the reps of those who turn it away. It'll be a big self-correcting moment, but the self-correcting won't be the story; the story will be the mistake. Ah HAH!

And so forth, until open war is declared and the New York Times deploys its hunter-killer bots to go back in time and terminate the guy who invents the WWW. I'm beginning to think they would if they could.

Read the whole thing here.

Lileks makes an excellent point. Remember children, "them wot lives by the sword shall die..." or something to that effect.

Video Bloggery: Go here to see Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit on Kudlow and Kramer. Glenn, referencing Austin Bay, notes that charges of "McCarthyism" directed against the bloggers are grossly inaccurate on a number of grounds.

Go here to see Howard Kurtz and Judy Woodruff discuss the affair on CNN [Courtesy Trey at Jackson Junction]

And go here [another Trey link] to see Bob Zelnick take Bob Beckel apart on Hannity and Colmes.