that Bernstein and Woodward were neither national reporters nor old hands at the time the Watergate scandal started to break. Their stories have been well documented; what is of perhaps greater interest is how the rest of the media could have so thoroughly dropped the ball. Has this story been told? And if it has, who has told it?

http://www.amazon.com/Feet-Fire-Media-After-Journalists/dp/1591023432/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8740797-7777447?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175262744&sr=8-1

Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out (Hardcover)

I'm only about 1/2 way through it but it does provide a decent post-mortem on the Pre-war Iraq coverage including interviews with people who defend their pre-war coverage.

I agree that there's always a danger of oversimplifying the problem and I admire your willingness to tackle the issue head-on.

Glenn, you should post somewhere the preface to your first book, Mr. Harris would benefit from reading it.

Glenn makes some astute observations about journalists' need to suck up to the right wing. Its still inexcusable, however. All that access makes for a lot of largely insignificant detail about things that don't really matter.

Its far more important for readers to know that Bush is lying about his tax program, for example, than to have inside scoops on what his economic advisers had for lunch while they hammered that program out.

It is worth noting that while there is a lot of effort dedicated towards corrupting journalists, a fair number of them do manage to do the right thing. Buried in the Enron email archives is a message from Pete Behr, a now-retired reporter from the Washington Post, turning down a bribe:

Dear Mr. Skilling:

Thanks very much for the invitation to participate with the energy forum you are planning and to be one of the commentators at the October 4th conference.

The forum is an intriguing idea, but under our reporting principles, I can't have such a relationship with a company I cover. I would like to attend the October conference if reporters are invited, but I also must decline the invitation to be one of the speakers.

Enron clearly occupies a unique place in the unfolding energy story--one I want to learn a lot more about. I hope there will an opportunity to visit soon on one of your trips here.

Sincerely yours,

Pete Behr

The Washington Post

The problem is that we don't generally know, in real time, who is corrupt and who isn't.

It has been CW for a while that national DC beat journalists' are not as hard-nosed as they should be, because they don't want to antagonize sources, thereby losing precious access.

I have always thought that reporting the truth and raising tough questions are paramount to the journalist's profession. If that means hurting an administration's feelings and losing that access, the good professional journalist then reports for 137 consecutive days that "the White House (or the Chairman or whoever) continues to stonewall..." and then that is the story!

These people don't seem to know how to do their job or even what it is! Sheesh!

As a fish doesn't know water, it is obvious that Harris' world is so full of right wing cant that he can't see it for what it is anymore. Drudge is a tool and a whore, and although I would not dispute his right to exist I would alsonever seek to elevate him to the stature of somone like Cronkite. Or even the level of the weather guy on my local TV channel.

Chalk it up to the un-anticipated side effects of the power of the Internet. The near-zero cost of the media gives reach to anyone not on substance, but whomever can sieze a cachet that gets lots of site hits. 95% of cable TV is an atrocity, why would you expect anything better from the web?

Glenn, your media analysis is very valuable, but you tend to not to recognize that reporters are not independent actors, but employees of large commercial enterprises. The issue is not so much the individual ethics of reporters or journalistic culture, but the practices and policies of the companies they work for.

Reporters do not have tenure and they do not enjoy academic freedom. They, like any employee at any company, are paid to carry out the strategies and mission that are established by top management.

It is not that individual reporters are lazy and would do a better job if they weren't so lazy. Rather their lack of skepticism and follow through is there because it is rewarded. People who might be too independent and critical do not get hired in the first place, but if they are, they are quickly shown that such behavior is not acceptable: their stories are not published, or only in the back pages; they are given poor assignments, etc.

When a prominent hack like John Solomon given top billing at the WaPo, it is clear that the problem is organizational, not individual. Hiring Solomon also sends a clear message to every other reporter at the company.

There is no essential difference among Fox, the NY Times or the WaPo. They are all large commercial enterprises that promote their self interest. They just interpret their self interest somewhat differently.

Glenn, your media analysis is very valuable, but you tend to not to recognize that reporters are not independent actors, but employees of large commercial enterprises. The issue is not so much the individual ethics of reporters or journalistic culture, but the practices and policies of the companies they work for.

I agre that that's a factor, and said so. But it clearly isn't the only thing needed to explain everything.

For one thing, not everyone who works for a company is a whore for the company willing to sacrifice their integrity to please their bosses. Some people who work at large corporations -- including media corporations -- retain their integrity and fight agianst currents they disagree with. Many don't (which is why the dynamic you describe is relevant), but many do (which is why your theory doesn't explain Everything).

Dana Priest is a very valued reporter at the Washington Post. Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau won Pulitzer Prizes, and sure enhanced their standing at the NYT, as a result of uncovering and exposing illegal eavesdropping. There are anti-administration leaks and anti-administration stories all the time in major newspapers.

Yes, you are right that the corporate culture breeds some of these attributes. But clearly there are people within it who nonetheless produce good reporting. And -- as the Lewinsky scandal showed -- scandal sells newspapers and produces ratings, so there is a corresponding economic/corporate incentive to actually do real investigative journalism (there's a countervailing incentive not to).

I just don't think it can be reduced to "Media = corporations = dictatorship suppressing dissent."