Journalism in a state of total collapse

Ican tell you the exact time and place that I lost all faith in the American press. I was watching CNN, which was, perhaps, my first mistake. There was a reported piece on the "conclusion" of combat in Fallujah, Iraq. The reporter noted that the majority of insurgents had melted into the desert, like Russians leaving Moscow empty for Napoleon, but the piece ended on a heartfelt note: One of the marines had stopped just short of blowing up a puppy with a grenade by accident, at which point he adopted the dog and named it Fallujah.

So, let me get this straight. Fallujah is in ruins, marines and civilians have been injured or killed, soldiers will probably have to stay there for years, it made no difference at all in the war because the insurgents left -- but it's OK because someone found a puppy? That warm sensation in my heart is either sentimentality or cardiac arrest. At this point, I really can't tell.

In the country that championed the free press, journalism has given a final gasp, wheezed, rolled over and died. The best we can expect is a network that dithers and regurgitates press releases equally, lest a Democratic press release get more airtime than a Republican one.

Print journalists have been better than their colleagues on television, but not by much. Especially disappointing is the White House press corps, allegedly the best of the best. These are the men and women I should be worshipping, and frantically demanding career advice from. Instead, I pity them. Instead, I stay up at night worrying that I may one day end up like them: fat, happy and nothing but the highly paid lapdog of an administration that alternately charms and intimidates, but is never respectful.

As a profession, journalism isn't overtly technical. It doesn't take much to learn the form in which news stories are written. Our jargon, from "ledes" to "nut grafs," is much easier to explain than, for example, "neurotrophin" or "photoelectric effect." What it takes is decent writing ability, an interest in politics and current events and the fundamental belief that people in positions of power will not always be benevolent and will not always act with the interests of the common good in mind.

It doesn't have to be about liberal versus conservative, although that always enters the picture. You think the Democrats don't have any skeletons in their collective closet? I can't even write that with a straight face. But the Republicans happen to be the party in power right now; they make policy, so they warrant scrutiny. That's not bias -- that's sanity.

Should we really be expected to give equal scrutiny to Dennis Kucinich frolicking around the country pretending to be relevant when Dennis Hastert is running the House of Representatives like his own personal fiefdom? Do we believe Bill Frist when he says that he has "no idea" how a provision got attached to a bill which would have allowed for committee chairmen to see every American's tax returns? Why can House Republicans get away with changing their own rules to protect Tom DeLay?

Why is the Justice Department imprisoning journalists who have nothing to do with the leak of a CIA agent's identity, while the one person who does know, Robert Novak, is protected? Are the thousands of dismembered American heroes returning from that godforsaken desert getting taken care of? Journalists aren't asking these questions. Bloggers are, and if they don't wake up soon, journalists will find themselves completely supplanted by their Web-savvy counterparts.

These issues may receive a story, sometimes even a follow-up and maybe even a staff editorial. But the manner in which they are treated is the journalistic equivalent of a shrug. Perhaps Republicans' constant accusation of bias has indeed shattered journalism's watchdog function, as many have written. But responsibility for journalism ultimately rests with journalists.

Even shows whose bread and butter is the so-called "grilling" of politicians, like Meet the Press, fall short. During the campaign, the vice president lied on television. He claimed to never have declared a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. But he did. This is not a distortion or mischaracterization. It is not open to interpretation. He lied. But it's OK, because hey, he probably has a puppy too.

Yesterday's Washington Post piece by Mike Allen revealed just how helpless reporters have become in dealing with this president. With a mere 16 press conferences under his belt, Bush has made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in making himself available to the press, and by extension, the American people. That's not surprising. What is surprising is everyone's decision to take it. It's no secret that The Daily Show is one of the only members of the media that still raises important questions, however satirically it does so. But why no one seems to have a problem with this is beyond me. The generation before me has failed, utterly and completely, and it is most certainly we who will inherit the whirlwind as a direct result. We can pick up the pieces and try to do a better job, but we certainly can't do a worse one.

Eliot Sherman is a senior English major from Philadelphia and editorial page editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian. Diary of a Madman normally appears on Thursdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.