American Journalists: Professional Whores

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent blog spot on the decadence of American's Washington "journalists" and compares them to Royal Court spokespersons.

It is important not to descend into unwarranted nostalgia. There have also been subservient journalists who prostituted themselves to political power in the name of "access" and "friendship" and in an effort to get closer to the political power they were enamored with. But it is just that today this lot is so much more larger than decades past that it is now the de facto order of contemporary American journalism. It is unimaginable that there would be a Woodward and Bernstein couple in the mainstream press today. In the current media culture, such men would be denounced for being "bitter" and seeking to "stir political divisions". The mainstream press today no longer has any concern for holding accountable political power today. They only serve the purpose of communicating the words of politicians with very little effort to check accuracy or being very critical.

The reason for this is that many of the mainstream journalists today get taken in by Washington's elite culture. They are vapid and want to be part of the "Beltway". It plays to their ego to be invited to Georgetown cocktails parties. Because they refuse to refrain from becoming part of the culture they're supposed to cover - which would be the noble thing - they end up going to the same parties and hanging out with the same politicians they're supposed to cover. All of this becomes the mosh pit of our Capital culture. There is no line of division between the press and the political class. Instead they all mingle together, dine together and go to the same parties together. And it is not surprising then that these journalists refrain from being critical of the same politicians they dine with and consider friends. Politicians are their buddies, and they're not going to be critical of their pals.

Sometimes this contemptibly culture is so strikingly laughable:

On Friday, CNN's Ed Henry posted a series of giggly, adolescent updates on his Twitter feed, describing the events that took place at a "beach" party thrown by Joe Biden, at the Vice President's mansion, for various "reporters" and White House officials. Digby excerpted just a sampling of Henry's giddy outburst:

henrytwitter S7A1E 19672

About all of this, [The Atlantic's[ Ambinder writes:

Does an afternoon of leisure with senior administration officials violate journalistic ethics? To many, the self-evident answer is: "Absolutely." I have a different view, although perhaps it's a way to rationalize my own decision to attend the Bidens' first beach party for journalists. . . .

Yes, "perhaps." I personally don't think that these types of interactions "violate journalistic ethics" because I don't think such a thing exists for them. Rather, all of this just helpfully reveals what our nation's leading "journalists" really are: desperate worshipers of political power who are far more eager to be part of it and to serve it than to act as adversarial checks against it -- and who, in fact, are Royal Court Spokespeople regardless of which monarch is ruling. That's why they're invited into the heart of Versailles to frolic with the King's most trusted aides: it's their reward for loyal service as Court courtiers. Just marvel at the self-abasing joy in which Ed Henry wallows by virtue of getting to play water sports with Emanuel and the Bidens. He sounds like a gushing pre-adolescent who just met his favorite boy band idol and got his water gun signed. Digby asks, quite rhetorically: "do you think this sort of thing makes it easier or more difficult for journalists to maintain their independence?"[...]

Do you think David Halberstam would have played water sports with Rahm Emanuel and then proudly giggled about it afterward on his Twitter feed:

One of the things I learned, the easiest of lessons, was that the better you do your job, often going against conventional mores, the less popular you are likely to be. (So, if you seek popularity, this is probably not the profession for you.).

There are a few things I would like to pass on to you as I come near to the end of my career.

One: It's not about fame. By and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are. . . .

Somewhere in there, gradually, but systematically, there has been an abdication of responsibility within the profession, most particularly in the networks. . . . .So, if we look at the media today, we ought to be aware not just of what we are getting, but what we are not getting; the difference between what is authentic and what is inauthentic in contemporary American life and in the world, with a warning that in this celebrity culture, the forces of the inauthentic are becoming more powerful all the time.

Idiots all of them and all.