It occurred to me just now that I hadn't fully read today's papers before they were chucked into the recycle bin. It also occurred to me that this no longer matters a whole lot.
It doesn't matter because the news media has finally, irretrievably sold out what integrity they had left in one last attempt to affect the presidential election. Oh, it's not like this hasn't happened before, but that was before the proliferation of blogs and websites that have the temerity to insist that the papers and the networks tell the truth. You know the details- Rathergate, yesterday's missing-explosives story- but even those aren't as offensive as one single fact: two of the largest news organizations in America, the "paper of record" and the erstwhile "Tiffany Network," planned to deliberately hold a story they thought would be damaging to the President and, until one "partner" decided to break the pact, intended to hold it until two days before the election so that the story could not effectively be challenged in time for the vote. Never mind that the story turned out to have a few problems that rendered it less effective than hoped- CBS and the New York Times are on the record as having intended to hold the story until October 31. You do the math.
Here it is in that other bastion of fairness, the L.A. Times:
Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of "60 Minutes," said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on [Oct.] 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold, so the decision was made for the Times to run it."
"That's what happened, and it was only fair to credit them," said Lawrie Mifflin, executive director of television and radio for the New York Times.
Both organizations declined to comment further.
Let's repeat this:
"...our plan was to run the story on [Oct.] 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold, so the decision was made for the Times to run it."
Again:
"...our plan was to run the story on [Oct.] 31..."
Why? Why run the story on that day? Why hold it until then? Why wouldn't it "hold"? Here's the explanation CBS offers:
The tip was received Wednesday, and reporters from both organizations were in place Thursday, but by Friday, when the story came together, only a single TV interview had been taped, said one person familiar with the chronology. Over the weekend, the newspaper got wind that other journalists were on the story, and decided it had to break the story Monday, this source said.
CBS, however, had another major story set to air on "60 Minutes" Sunday: new reporting on the racially motivated slaying of 14-year-old Emmett Till in Mississippi in 1955. It also could not tape enough Iraq interviews in time for the Sunday broadcast.
Not enough time to tape interviews? How many did they need? The Times apparently didn't need more than it had. They couldn't work on Saturday with such a huge story ready to break? And holding it to make room for breaking news in a story 49 YEARS OLD? Do they think the public's stupid?
Don't answer that. It's unnecessary.
The rest of the news media, apparently, isn't all that concerned about this. Sure, circulation's not what it used to be- not if they tell the truth, which, judging by the Newsday, Chicago Sun-Times, and Dallas Morning News scandals, may be an institutional problem- but, hey, if the flyover rabble wants the news, where else are they gonna go? Now, there are options, not all owned by Tribune or Knight-Ridder or the New York Times or any of the other modern press barons. No worries, they think, we can just dismiss those as unprofessional non-journalists with partisan axes to grind (except for Kos or Atrios or Wonkette- so cool, and one of us)- let's all just gather at Romanesko's letters page and discuss what really matters, like how many more papers endorsed our man Kerry this week or whether j-school's worth the trouble. Or maybe a letter or two attacking any critic who dares suggest that Jon Stewart- one of us, except when he's not- might just have climbed aboard with The Fonz and jumped that shark. Meanwhile, their house may not be burning down, but there's smoke coming out of the basement. What the New York Times and CBS do reflects on the entire industry, and the entire industry collectively yawns and moves on. (Or points at Fox and says "see? They're biased!" as if that gets everyone else off the hook)
So I didn't read the A sections today. The L.A. Times and the Daily Breeze are now gathering moisture in the bin back behind the garage, pages melding together in the rain. I did read "Get Fuzzy" and "Pearls Before Swine," scanned the sports section, but I missed the front page, the metro sections, the business and lifestyle sections, the editorial pages. And with each passing day of this campaign, failing to read the paper seems more and more like the reasonable thing to do.
Share