Stenography vs Journalism

By Steve Hynd

I haven't really paid much attention to the likes of Lara Logan or Andrew Briebart's "Big Journalism" website. It seemed to me that they were as "in the tank" for the establishment figures they report upon even before the current debate on journalistic best practise begun by McChrystal's loose lips.

Logan confirmed it on CNN's "Reliable Sources" over the weekend and Briebart's site has an essay on the virtues of stenography for access today by no less a figure than Jeb Babbin - a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H. W. Bush administration and "designated guest host of Oliver North�s 'Common Sense Radio'" as well as a columnist for the Washington Times, American Spectator and other rightwing echoes. He knows the way to keep the establishment happy:

As General McChrystal�s experience with Rolling Stone proves, the politically-activist media are an insurgent force that has to be dealt with in order to enable American voters to understand what is going on in the war.

Let us belabor a metaphor.  If the liberal media are the Taliban, how shall the counterinsurgency be conducted?

...The answer is to carefully, discretely and continuously reach out to those in the media who aren�t the obvious dead-enders.  Bring them into the training facilities.  Put them in places where they can gain the knowledge essential to fair reporting.  Allow them to observe, listen and learn what our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen do.  Educate them, gain their confidence and teach them what is important to convey to the public.  Not every backseat ride in an F-15 will result in a convert, but many will.

Give the media that all important access, groom them, smooze them - win the hearts and minds of these dollar-a-day insurgents - and when the time comes they're more likely to lob softballs or push the story you want written.

The results were noted by Pamela Hess, AP's recently retired Pentagon reporter, back in 2004 when she still worked for UPI:

And every once in a while a government official will call you and say, 'We'd like you not to be working on that story and here's why.' And sometimes you agree with it � you agree to their demands, because sometimes they offer you a better deal, 'Well, when we're ready for this to come out, I'll give you the exclusive on it' or 'Here's why we don't want this.' I remember one, there was one story many years ago that I worked on that I had had � I got from three different sources that were in a closed-door meeting in the tank in the Pentagon, and one general in there had said � I think this was almost a direct quote, but something along the lines of 'America's going to have to get over its fear of casualties.'

� So this is, of course, a very important story. A general that outranked that general, who I actually had a very good relationship with, who I could talk to off-the-record or on background frequently, called me and asked me not to report that story, and I didn't. And the reason that I didn't was twofold. Number one, I needed this second general more than I needed that story. And number two, I thought he made a great point, which is, 'If they can't speak their minds in these closed-door meetings, then we're really robbing the Pentagon of its ability to do its job.'"

That's one camp, and as Babbin reveals the Pentagon and other establishment power bocs work hard to make it the biggest camp. Then there's the other, as exemplified by Prof. Stephen Ward, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin:

I'm not speaking from the classroom only. I was a war corro(ph). I've had to deal with generals and the military, and I'm telling you, if you start pulling your punches, so to curry favor with the colonel or the general, you will pull the next punch and the next punch, and you are not serving the public, which is your primary duty, you're serving them.

And by the way, if you're going to do that, maybe we should put a little footnote at the bottom of all your stories saying there were some things I couldn't print, but you know what? I can't tell you.

... I think [Michael Hasting has] given us a peek into it and also a very curious peek into some of the attitudes of the reporters out there. I'm quite surprised by some of their attacks on him, simply, you know, complaining about access. Well, that's not the main thing in journalism.

I mean, we can't say the principle can't be if we're going to ruin access, we won't print it. I mean, you know, Watergate would never have happened, all these great investigative stories would never have happened.

Which of these two camps, which ethical paradigm, is most prevalent in the mainstream media is provbably shown by a piece of stenography for the "long war" lobby by Tim Arango in the NYT today.

Beyond August the next Iraq deadline is the end of 2011, when all American troops are supposed to be gone. But few believe that America�s military involvement in Iraq will end then. The conventional wisdom among military officers, diplomats and Iraqi officials is that after a new government is formed, talks will begin about a longer-term American troop presence.

�I like to say that in Iraq, the only thing Americans know for certain, is that we know nothing for certain,� said Brett H. McGurk, a former National Security Council official in Iraq and current fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. �The exception is what�s coming once there�s a new government: they will ask to amend the Security Agreement and extend the 2011 date. We should take that request seriously. �

Oddly enough, for all that Americans "know this for certain", the one thing Arango didn't do was give any quotes from Iraqi leaders on their opinions. It's pure shill-work for the Petraeus-Odierno faction at the Pentagon.

Obviously, journalism is in a sorry state.