I'm not a journalist, but I am unemployed right now and so maybe I like to think I could be a journalist. There seems to be a lack of quality in that profession to be sure. Who knows? Perhaps I'd be very good at it. Lately, I have certainly become interested in it.
Some of this has been fueled by Jon Stewart's recent tirades regarding CNBC and their lack of integrity regarding actual financial news. I try not to jump on bandwagons, but Jon Stewart really is a cultural figure of importance and will be remembered as relevant when we are very old and perhaps even gone. Children in the future will hear his name and refer to him without any clue as to why he was important. How will we explain it? He was a comedian? A satirist? How will we explain how society became so absurd that satire was the only means of addressing it? Because that is what has happened. Jon Stewart is no journalist, regardless of what his many acolytes on the internet may claim. He parodies journalists; sadly, journalism has become so terrible in its practice that to parody it seems like journalism itself.
Stewart's interview with CNBC's Cramer last night was a good reminder that the watchdog of the press needs a watchdog of its own. Glenn Greenwald over at Salon pointed out the similarities between Stewart's interview and one (much more relevant and sadly, much more ignored) a few years ago on PBS, when Bill Moyers' questioned Tim Russert about his basically giving Dick Cheney free airtime to sell the War in Iraq. Russert's shameful response was that he "wished" someone had picked up the phone and called him with information contrary to Cheney's now-famous aluminum tubes claim. Wrong answer, of course. It was Russert's job to make those calls, not to sit back on his heels and wait for the calls to come to him.
One of the reasons for this simple: news shows require ratings and ratings are driven up by the appearance of big names - CEOs, Senators, Secretaries of State, Presidents, people at the top. Today's journalists feel they need access to these people in order to do their jobs. Of course, as Jon Stewart demonstrates so well, that simply isn't so. The people at the top will sell their own agendas (such is their right), but there's no news there. That's stenography at best, advertising at worst. The real news comes from the people in the trenches, people working on Wall Street, in banks, in the halls of government - people whose names you don't know yet. These are the revelators, the truth-tellers. Of course, some nameless employee of the State Department may not be as glamorous as Secretary Clinton, but you are guaranteed to get better information.
In old movies, you always see the reporter, flask at the ready, mingling with these types of people, scribbling in their tiny notebooks whatever information accidentally gets leaked after a few shots of something strong.
I was reading about an idea for non-profits and universities to begin funding journalism, especially with the failure of newspapers lurking in the near-future. This funding could strike a blow against the ratings-based corporate structure that exists today and simply isn't working. For the press to succeed at it's function, it will require talent, untouched by business interests, yet it will also require money. A non-profit funding scheme could do the trick. I would love to be of assistance, as I am still looking for my calling in life and I do care passionately about this issue.
Until then however, I will now get back to rearranging my Netflix queue.
