Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

You may recall that reporters at the The New York Times have said they may no longer attend the White House Correspondents Association dinner. To that I say: Great! But that’s not what I want to talk about. Instead, I’ll quote at length from an interesting moment in Jay Rosen’s examination of this situation:

Rutenberg’s article made me wish I had followed, in this instance, blogger Dave Winer’s policy. When asked for a phone or e-mail interview, he usually declines. “If you have a few questions, send them along, and if I have something to say, I’ll write a blog post, which of course you’re free to quote,” he said last week. Responding to Winer, and to this event with Jason Calacanis and Wired magazine, Jeff Jarvis wrote: “The interview is outmoded and needs to be rethought.”

I know I’m rethinking it. Rutenberg and I had a pretty detailed conversation about the put down of the establishment press under Bush, certain failures of imagination in Washington journalism, the interpretation of Colbert’s performance in 2006, and the “musty” feel that the invitation to Rich Little had. I pointed out, for example, that Little was at his peak at roughly the same cultural moment that the Washington press corps was at its peak in the afterglow of Watergate.

But what Jim needed me for was the bloggers vs. journalists debate. “In hiring an impersonator practiced in an old-school approach to comedy, meant to entertain but not offend, the White House Correspondents’ Association has, however, provoked left-leaning political activists, who see his assignment as a retreat from last year’s dinner.” (Subtext: Wow, the left is as angry with the press as the right was. Just listen to the so-called Net roots attack us for not carrying their message.)

Notice that it is “activists” who are upset with the White House press, and it is their conflict with civil, professional and reasonable journalists that creates friction enough for a story. I wanted nothing to do with that narrative. I told Rutenberg that I did not see the press as “in the pocket of Bush” (as many on the left do) but as overwhelmed by the phenomena of Bush-as-president, and by the radicalism of his Administration, especially the expansion of executive power. This included in one aspect the rollback of the press and its de-certification as questioner of the president.

But Rutenberg recruited me into his narrative anyway. Colbert wasn’t the first comic to insult the president, he wrote. “Imus angered the Clinton White House in 1996 when he made fun of Mr. Clinton as a philanderer at a Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner.”

I haven’t spent much time examining interviewing on Rhetorica, although it is as much a rhetorical performance as writing the news. Rosen’s example here demonstrates why. Recall that I have claimed that the press applies a narrative structure to ambiguous events in order to create a coherent and causal sense of events. This application of narrative structure actually occurs long before the writing begins. It happens in many cases before the reporting begins. It happens all too often in the minds of editors who believe they know what the “story” is before reporters begin doing their jobs.

I shouldn’t have to point out that this is a problem and why it is a problem. But I will in brief: This is an example of bias (not necessarily of the simplistic liberal or conservative kind, although it can be).

Those of us with with advanced academic degrees often become the focus of reporters seeking specific quotes–quite often at the urging of editors–, i.e. they need expert X to make claim Y. Claim Y may or may not be valid, but that is beside the point because it, apparently, “balances” the story (or, in less professional moments, it says something a journalist wants said–beat and general assignment journalists should not, however, want anything in particular said–ever–unless writing clearly labeled analysis or commentary). The reporter needs it because the editor needs it. And the poor citizen is left all too often to sort it out for themselves. Again, journalists should be custodians of fact operating with a discipline of verification.

(We teach this stuff. I swear we do.) 

Journalism cannot cover in a single article all the complexity of a news situation. Good journalism must unfold over time. And, at times, any given portion of that coverage may lack something important or may emphasize something that doesn’t deserve it. We just have to live with this because journalism is not in a position (never was) to report and write the by-god final say on anything on the first go-round.

So it would work much better if journalists would take a deep breath and then approach any given news situation as if they are learning rather than teaching, as if they are involved in a conversation rather than a lecture.

UPDATE (2:50 p.m. CDT): Check out the latest from Rosen.

Tag: journalism
Tag: rhetoric