I'm appalled by the hubris of the press. And by press, I mean both the "old" and "new" media: print reporters and columnists, bloggers and online journalists alike.
I've covered politics for About.com, which is a New York Times Co., for only a couple years now, but what I've learned about national political reporting has softened my perspective toward the media hardships of political leadership.
Silly me. I always thought that, like they teach in college journalism courses, the press works for the great American public, as do political leaders. Apparently not. Or not always.
If the recent Scooter Libby case has taught journalists anything, it's that reporters can be and are deftly, cleverly used to prop up political agendas.
And it's routine for partisan pundits, from conservative Rush Limbaugh to liberal Al Franken, to grant airtime and print space only to leaders who support their iron-clad worldviews.
Of course, conservatives have complained for decades that the so-called liberal media reports from a radically-biased perspective.
I have my own frustration with pundits who cite the Moonie-owned, ultra-conservative Washington Times newspaper (and similar) as a credible, objective news source, and the Wall Street Journal, in recent years, has brashly trumpeted its conservative slant.
None of that is especially new, though.
What's new, and most galling of all, are members of the political press who punish leaders who don't stroke the reporter's ego; who don't provide 24/7 access on demand; who don't respond to every intrusive personal query; who don't always present a happy smile, a pat answer and warm approval of every crass word written about them.
Three examples rush to mind.
First, to be fair, I must confess my admiration of the seeming grace, humor and self-possessed civility at which President Bush usually conducts himself at press conferences and under the incessant barrage of reporters.
There's precious little of the Bush agenda that I agree with, and his administration has been utterly lacking in the honesty and transparency necessary to foster democracy.
But Democrats, we must concede: on a personal level, George Bush has behaved civilly, even warmly, under tough, horribly intrusive conditions. Do we really need to know of the Bush twins' latest antics? Do we need another photo of the President astride a mountain bike? Must the president be pushed with same question over and over and over?
Of course, prosecutor's Ken Starr's 1990s sex-crazed witchhunt of Bill Clinton is the ultimate example of prurient pursuit for political ends. The press lapped it up like thirsty dogs, and breathlessly reported on it for months. How often did we need to hear about the spot on Monica's navy blue dress?
The latest press snit-fit involves reporters who feel they deserve greater access to, or respect from, 2008 presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. And unrequited, they attack, smear and condescend.
For instance, February 14, 2007 New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd disdainly huffed:
"The Illinois senator didn’t have on an implacable mask of amiability, as Hillary did in Iowa. He didn’t look happily in his element, like Bill Clinton. But he certainly didn’t look as if he was straining to survive the Q .& A.’s, as W. did in the beginning...
In the lobby of the AmericInn in Iowa Falls on Saturday night, he seemed a bit dazed by his baptism into the big-time. He was left munching trail mix all day while, he said, 'the press got fed before me.'...
After talking to high school journalists, he took a sniffy shot at the loutish reporters who were merely whispering where’s the beef: 'Take some notes, guys, that’s how it’s done.' No fewer than three times last week, Mr. Obama got indignant about the beach-babe attention given to a shot of him in the Hawaiian surf...
For a man who couldn’t wait to inject himself into the national arena, and who has spent so much time writing books about himself, the senator is oddly put off by press inquisitiveness... Take some notes, senator, that’s how it’s done. "
And then there's reporter Mike Allen who penned a nasty, backhanded hit piece at Politico.com in January 2007 on Sen. Obama. And on C-SPAN after Obama's announcement speech, Allen dripped with objective-sounding venom as he commented on the momentous event.
Top liberal blogger Oliver Willis observed, "Mike Allen, part of the inside-DC cocktail set, is not getting access to the Obama campaign and he's getting back at him by pissing all over the campaign."
And Matt Stoller of MyDD wrote, "That's the kind of campaign Allen wants to cover, and Obama's not giving it to him. So Allen's mad, and it shows."
Examples abound from both sides of the political aisle: Journalists who gloat that they can make or break a candidate. Bloggers who withhold support until they receive sufficient fawning attention. Reporters who probe into the darkly sensational because they despise the politician.
In the articles cited, Mike Allen, Maureen Dowd and the like are acting purely for their self-interests. And their rants have not one scintilla to do with public good or the public's need to know.
Call me naive if you will, but I still believe in a modicum of civility and privacy. Our country, our families, our children would be in a better, healthier place if we focused on the formidable issues of our day, and ignored trashy, Anna Nicole-like distractions.
Democracy works only when the political press upholds its responsibility to the public, and doesn't indulge in a narcissistic, influence-hungry, gossip-driven shadow of the best traditions of American journalism.
Take some notes, press: more humility, less hubris, will get us everywhere.
