White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

What Ails the Press? It Ails Itself

by 2 Comments

It was Thomas Carlyle who told us that Edmund Burke, in a parliamentary debate in 1787 on the opening of press coverage of the House of Commons, declared, “there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”

In the context of Parliament, the other three estates would have been the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.

Burke's phrase stuck. More than two centuries later, the Fourth Estate is preserved, but is it powerful?

Here in Washington, it is losing respect rapidly. Today Burke, who was praising the independence of the reporters in ushering over two centuries of media standing up to authority, might wonder if he had overstated their zeal. Three and a Half Estates he might have decided.

The crisis in the media, as some of us believe, is not in the decline of newspapers, the shrinking of viewership for traditional television news, or the growth of partisan cable news, but rather in two other unrelated but dangerously coincidental trends.

The first of these is that the establishment in Washington now believes it doesn't need the media in the way that the media was believed to be needed traditionally. No longer do those hoping to influence Congress begin by selling their point of view to the media by lunching reporters, persuading editorial boards and courting columnists. Instead lobbyists go straight to Congress, where the game is to buy the votes they need with campaign contributions. Who needs the media to stir up popular support when the deed can be done with silver?

Gerald Cassidy, maybe the most successful K Street lobbyist of them all, lamented this change to me at lunch about 10 years ago. It has simply gotten worse.

Cassidy worried about the lack of public support for major legislation passed under lobby pressure. He also lamented how little time a lobbyist got with a member — how little time to dwell on the merits of a course of action.

Cassidy became a very wealthy man lobbying, but he yearned for a fair fight. The old-fashioned way, if you will.

This new state of affairs can be felt in the decline of interest in the general media by public relations firms who used to court every reporter in Washington. Now they “counsel” their clients; offer “strategic planning” and — oddly, as they take little notice of the media — a strange hybrid called “media training.” What media? Their other big new product is to keep reporters away from influential people: the people reporters need to talk to.

In case you think this is peculiarly a Washington phenomenon, it is not. At a recent meeting of the Association of European journalists in Maastricht, the Netherlands, speaker after speaker from country after country complained about those who allegedly are paid to facilitate press access in business and in government and instead wall off their masters.

The second downward trend is a pervasive pusillanimity that has gripped the media in the last several years. We allow ourselves to be segregated, corralled and de facto licensed.

At the White House, the press briefings are like feeding time for the dolphins at Sea World. We, the correspondents, sit around waiting for the keeper, press secretary Jay Carney, to bring in the dead fish. He throws most of it to the network correspondents, sitting grandly in the first two rows where they engage him in long conversations. Finally, Carney tosses some squid to the print reporters in the back of the room and an occasional minnow to the foreign press.

The problem is not that Carney does that but that we take it.

Likewise we can't walk without an escort to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House, as we used to and a minder sits in on our interviews. And we take it.

The press conferences are rigged. Regular correspondents don't get to ask questions, just a predictable few — yes, those with the fishy breath from the front row.

Some old timers spoke up and lambasted the press at a meeting in Washington this week. Former Washington Post reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Haynes Johnson said, “It's all very stale, very structured, very pale.” Sid Davis, a former NBC bureau chief, said the press conferences look as though the correspondents are watching a funeral service.

And longtime NBC and ABC correspondent Sander Vanocur said, “You want to know what's wrong with the press? The press is what's wrong with the press.” — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

 

A Little Hate Is Good for Fourth Estate

by Leave a Comment

 

There must be some nostalgia at CBS News for the good old days, when the network was roundly hated and people at the political extremes longed to see it fail. Now that it is failing (it is a laggard in the ratings), nobody seems to care. Gone are the conservatives, who wanted to buy the network to sanitize it and rout out alleged liberal journalists. Also gone are the political lefties, who believed that CBS was the captive of its advertisers.

In media, to be hated is an affirmation that you are succeeding.

At The Radio & Television Correspondents’ Association annual dinner this week, the happiest people were at the Fox News tables. Roger Ailes, the principal architect of Fox’s huge success as a news network, and his star host, Bill O’Reilly, were beaming—well aware that most people in the room believe that the Fox cable channel has degraded broadcast news.

It is not just CBS that is hurting, but also other traditional media as well—most especially newspapers. Marylanders used to hate The Baltimore Sun. Now they worry that their venerable newspaper is on the ropes, and may be sold to quite the wrong kind of person.

They used to say in newsrooms, “If you aren’t hated, you’re not doing this job right.” Unfortunately, the quality of hatred that most news organizations face is sadly watered down. Generalized attacks on the “liberal media” and the “mainstream media” just don’t pack much of a wallop. They tell us more about the attacker than the attacked.

Happily, two newspapers—maybe two of the three best newspapers in the country—can still agitate those who believe in media conspiracies. These are The New York Times and The Washington Post. The third is The Wall Street Journal, which has never raised the same kind of intense feeling as the other two. Its editorial page is so predictable that even liberals cannot get mad at it. And its news coverage is pretty faultless.

The two big East Coast newspapers can really get the critics going. The New York Times, through a series of terrible blunders, has opened itself up to particularly virulent criticism. The Washington Post, which sells five times as many newspapers as its nearest competitor, The Washington Times, unerringly gets the brickbats. Civil rights groups accuse it of racial insensitivity. And radio talk show hosts like to refer to it as “The Washington Compost.” Even so, the paper has just bagged six Pulitzer prizes. Particularly, it showed the whole world last year that it could still deliver great journalism by revealing the scandalous treatment of veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have the resources to do the job right. Although The Times is in a slump, and appears to be in desperate need of an editor who has a vision and a publisher who is competent, it still triumphs on solid, day-to-day coverage of big continuing stories. Its coverage of the subprime mortgage crisis and its on-the-ground reporting out of Iraq are excellent.

Michael Wolff, the media critic of Vanity Fair, is in full pursuit of The New York Times in his May column. Wolff catalogs the humiliations the newspaper has suffered in recent times (including the Jayson Blair fictions, Judith Miller’s partisanship, and the insinuation that John McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist) and speculates on the possibility that the special voting stock, which gives the Sulzberger family control of the paper, may be under attack.

It may be very difficult to change the bylaws of the company, but Wolff thinks that angry shareholders could force the sale issue; or that the Sulzberger family, like the Bancroft family that used to own The Wall Street Journal, can simply be bought off. One way or the other, Wolff sees dissident shareholders changing the corporate structure of the paper.

At the same time, with a similar stock arrangement, the Graham family, greatly assisted by Warren Buffet, is firmly in control of its newspaper.

Yet, neither the Sulzbergers nor the Grahams have had huge financial successes with the properties they inherited. Both have had considerable editorial successes by lavishing resources on the papers. But as publishing ventures, the families have been timid and sometimes foolish. They profited from near monopolies, but mostly failed in diversification. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the father of the present publisher of The New York Times, confounded the publishing industry when he bought The Boston Globe. Analysts warned that two newspapers in the same advertising market would hurt more than a different kind of diversification. But the man who got it right in launching a national edition of The New York Times got it very wrong in Boston. The Globe is losing money and is a drain on The New York Times Company.

Katherine Graham, the late publisher of The Washington Post, who is revered in newspaper circles, did some pretty odd things herself. She clung to Newsweek, when it could have been sold profitably; invested in newspapers in New Jersey and Washington state; and nibbled at small publishing ventures in Washington, D.C. It can be argued that it wasn’t until Buffet came onto the scene with his steadying hand—he is a large shareholder and director of the company—that The Post started hedging the risk of newspaper publishing. In particular, it bought Stanley H. Kaplan Educational Centers, which has turned out to be a cash cow and is now more profitable than The Post.

Unlike The New York Times, The Washington Post had a clear idea of what to do with its Web pages, which are now in profit–as is Slate, the online magazine that The Post bought from Microsoft.

Nobody knows the future of newspapers. But we do know that the well-being of a democracy depends on them. Both The New York Times and The Washington Post are still making a profit, though not as much as in years past. And the public still has the energy and good sense to hate them.