I don't want to hate unless that person has done something to me. Mark Harris, columnist for Entertainment Weekly, hasn't. I don't even know the guy. But after sticking for Katherine Heigl's under-bus throwing of the writers of Grey's Anatomy last year, he's been on my radar. And now, with his essay this week saying the best journalist on TV is Jon Stewart, I'm going to stick my neck out and tell y'all why that opinion sucks. Or, to make it more personal, why Harris sucks.
First, I'll start off picking on the small things. Harris lambastes the Big Three (network anchors Brian William, Charles Gibson and Katie Couric) without acknowledging other facts that I think are salient. While they are the managing editors of their news services, reporters are the ones that do the footwork and file the stories. Moreover, while there are some pieces that invite and even demand the American people take a stand on one side or the other, many stories are just informative pieces, stuff like Ford announcing massive sales last month, or the latest skirmishes in Afghanistan. Last night I just saw a CBS report on a 65-year-old training to be a cop. How the hell can you not be neutral on a story like that (unless saying to yourself, "Geez, a 65-year-old is training to be a cop? Good for him!" is an acceptable point-of-view Harris expects)?
And while I don't have cable (obvious weak point in my argument, but what the hell), I'll believe Stewart when he says he doesn't think himself as a journalist, just a comedian, a satirist and a news critic. That's great, and from what I've seen him on The Daily Show, that is exactly what he is and what he should stick to. He serves a purpose, a vital one. But it's not news.
And that's my biggest gripe against Harris. He believes that it's OK to get your news from people whom "I know where they're coming from." He warns against the slippery slope into "the dumbed-down demagoguery that has infected cable news." That's a menace to remain vigilant of, but by investing completely in someone whose reason for being is to make fun of politicians and reporters and not necessarily honing in on the facts, he's basically signing up for that type of mud-slinging -- a liberally-biased one (not that there's anything wrong with that, I feel much the same way), but mud-slinging nonetheless. That you're honest about your biases doesn't make what you regard as journalism, journalism. News isn't information that you want, Mr. Harris, it's information that you need.
It's really funny that he admires Walter Cronkite for editorializing on the Vietnam War. That was one of the few times he did it, and even then he had to be persuaded to do so. He was unflappingly, maybe even rigidly objective when it came to delivering the news, and he thought a reporter's opinion is best given sparingly, if at all. Cronkite knew that if he and his team could get all the facts of a story, the people would be able to discern the truth; putting yourself front and center is a weapon you use once in a while for maximum impact. I don't fault The Big Three for aspiring to do the same. They're not going to be as good as Cronkite, and I think even they know they won't. But while Harris believes "their determination to appear nonideological" is a weakness and an impossibility I think is an absolute requirement to scour an entire subject for any and all kernels of truth. Being neutral may be a myth, but it nonetheless is worth pursuing. The best ones put their personal thoughts aside and just report. I'm certain that if he were alive today, Cronkite would upbraid Harris for boasting about getting his news from someone who has similar political leanings. Bottom line: If I want to hear someone who agrees with me, I'll watch Keith Olbermann. If I want to hear the news, I'll watch the news, and so what if I don't know how Brian, Charles and Katie tick?
I will agree with Harris when he laments the idea that neutrality is too often used when common sense demands that one side "wins." But running to Jon Stewart isn't the answer. I think he still is reacting to the media's cock-sucking of the Bush Administration when they decided to invade Iraq. We were all reeling from 9/11, and Saddam Hussein was not taking seriously America's threats to let inspectors search his country for weapons of mass destruction, so we let him have it. It's a worthy indictment of journalism -- although, as Arianna Huffington points out in her book, Right Is Wrong, there were several lone cries in the night saying there were no WMD's, and I specifically remember Ted Kennedy, not a shrinking violet he, saying that they were about to start a bad war fought under false pretenses.
Fast forward to the health care bill. Now, I'm all for Obama's almost-perfect version of health insurance reform, and I hate that Republicans are trying to bury it under their usual heap of lies. But the Congressional Budget Office saying that the president's plan will cost taxpayers more than the White House says it will is news; is there a side that needs to be taken? Blue Dog Democrats worry about doctors in rural areas that might lose money in the deal, and they hate that reform may drag us deeper into debt; how would there be evidence discounting those concerns? If there is no such evidence, is it possible that their concerns aren't just political posturing but are in fact real? Important political subjects are often complex, mostly because many opposing sides (not just two) have compelling reasons that any sane, decent American can understand, if not agree with. That's what the news should be -- a vehicle of information, not a tool for advocacy.
If anything, there needs to be an end to the networks' pursuit of ratings. That leads them to accept ads from companies whom they should be critical of, which leads to tension that their employers -- people who run companies -- will "pressure" reporters to look away or soft-pedal critical stories about those sponsors. This also leads to too many puff pieces that do nothing to inform me about the way the nation and the world is now. I understand that finishing a broadcast talking about Bo The First Dog has a lot of human interest, but I don't think we'd see so much attention paid to it if the news didn't need it to pump up ratings.
Two times Stewart had what Mr. Harris probably would call a "Cronkite moment" -- his 9/11 commentary and his commentary after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled. Both times I saw him at his best -- raw, passionate, human. It's a declaration from a smart man who doesn't take himself too seriously but knows that he has a pulpit and will use it to say what he thinks. That still doesn't make him a newsman. What worries me is that he will give in to "The Most Trusted Man In America" title that his fans have bestowed upon him and start to fancy himself a journalist. Don't believe the hype Mark Harris gives you, sir. You are a comedian. And you are excellent just the way you are.
No comments:
Post a Comment