Going back to Dr. Cline (ok, my bias is showing – but c’mon – he’s good), he has a useful post listing the reasons modern journalists are perceived as arrogant: Nicholas Kristof almost gets it. It’s a good list, if a little academic (like this series of posts). But if one word can capture the cause of the public’s perception that journalists are arrogant and out of touch, I’m afraid it’s “accountability” – or more specifically – the lack of it. Cline touches on that when mentioning “failing to correct their errors”. I added “a false sense of 1st Amendment ownership“. But the most relevant to Littwin’s column is the phrase, “dismissing the lived experience of others.” That’s a VERY effective path to being perceived as arrogant and out of touch.

Yes, you have. But I expected that. That part of my comment was aimed elsewhere

As I was leaving my office after posting that comment, I realized I had missed the obvious from my own discipline (and I think it fits with what you’re getting at): We can and should discuss how the right, left, and journalism (left and/or right) vary in terms of tactics regarding the rhetoric of dismissal.

re: Which do you think is closest to one of the forms of journalistic arrogance?

Interesting question. A quick answer would be that journalistic dismissal would more closely mirror the left in terms of journalistic rhetoric (the whole epistemology argument I’ve made before). But I would say that when the press climbs on its moral high horse, it more closely resembles the right in that regard. I have no evidence, so consider this a hypothesis. It would be interesting to find out.

For example, journalists are quick to dismiss the arguments of their critics as “dumb” while at the same time finding justification for their POV in the “dumb” criticism from both sides.

That might be two different forms of arrogance unique to journalists’ culture.

Then there is the cliche about the Right’s moral arrogance and the Left’s intellectual arrogance. Which do you think is closest to one of the forms of journalistic arrogance?

Hopefully I’ve avoided the dumbness that concerned you.

I’m avoiding of any discussion of which side is more dismissive (and why) because that could get dumb very quickly It would be less dumb if we had a metric. I’m not sure we do. I suppose we could have a qualitative discussion of it, but then we’re into whose experience is more real–and again, dumbness could follow.

But the auditor perceives it differently, based on the differences between the culture/ideology of Left/Right, does she not?

The right does this as well as the left. The left does not corner the market on seeing itself as enlightened.

Most of us belong to multiple cultures so it’s quite important that the specific culture that is the cause of a behavior should be identified. Is the cultural bias professional, J-school based, ideological, or from some other cultural source? It’s important to nail down exactly where the problem is coming from.

I might be for this law if I thought it would improve the news, but unfortunately, we would see more “unnamed sources” and outright making stuff up since the reporters would know they could not be held accountable.

The federal shield law might more palatable to the public if journos would give something up in return, like making the libel laws more consumer friendly, rather than press friendly, or even better, restricting the use of “unnamed sources” to a very narrow category, with severe punishment for failure to comply. The press needs to be held MORE accountable, not less. That they think they must be above the law in order to do their job, is the ultimate chutzpah, and I hope the federal shield law is shot down—-it offends me that is even being considered.

2a speaks a little to trustworthiness and being out of touch. But, mostly, my list is specific to my discipline, which is what I intended.

Perhaps you and others will add to it. A collective list might get a little attention.

re: or is that another (two?) essay(s)?

haha… maybe