We've seen several very high profile cases, specifically David Brooks of the New York Times, who wrote an article after Michael Hastings broke the General McChrystal story for Rolling Stone stating:
The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.
Then we have this example of the Biden Beach Party for journalists where people like Wolf Blitzer, David Sanger, Marc Ambinder, and Ed Henry get to play with waterguns with the White House Chief of Staff:
I agree that you can't be a jerk all the time and break big stories. But you've got to acknowledge that at the moment, journalism isn't suffering because it's too adversarial. It's suffering because it's too deferential to powerful interests. Journalists like David Brooks enjoy going to cocktail parties. The most interesting part of his job is observing powerful people at close quarters - not reporting interesting stories.
As for your work-a-day journalist covering flower shows and local sports games, I think we can agree that bad might be good enough. But if you think about it, you don't need a real "journalist" at all to cover these stories. A lower standard "blogger" could probably do just fine.
As for covering a disaster, I would think that there's a huge world of difference. Disaster relief can be covered like the local flower show or it can be done right and it can be followed up on for weeks to make sure that it is being handled correctly by those in power, that corruption isn't rampant, and that those in need are getting the services they require (the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina comes to mind). No one has suggested that we move towards screaming heads and sensationalism. Research and fact-checking are indeed important.
The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1...
Then we have this example of the Biden Beach Party for journalists where people like Wolf Blitzer, David Sanger, Marc Ambinder, and Ed Henry get to play with waterguns with the White House Chief of Staff:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid42950271001?...
I agree that you can't be a jerk all the time and break big stories. But you've got to acknowledge that at the moment, journalism isn't suffering because it's too adversarial. It's suffering because it's too deferential to powerful interests. Journalists like David Brooks enjoy going to cocktail parties. The most interesting part of his job is observing powerful people at close quarters - not reporting interesting stories.
As for your work-a-day journalist covering flower shows and local sports games, I think we can agree that bad might be good enough. But if you think about it, you don't need a real "journalist" at all to cover these stories. A lower standard "blogger" could probably do just fine.
As for covering a disaster, I would think that there's a huge world of difference. Disaster relief can be covered like the local flower show or it can be done right and it can be followed up on for weeks to make sure that it is being handled correctly by those in power, that corruption isn't rampant, and that those in need are getting the services they require (the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina comes to mind). No one has suggested that we move towards screaming heads and sensationalism. Research and fact-checking are indeed important.