"The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable"

Former Los Angeles Times staff writer Ken Silverstein has a great guest column in his old paper. He concludes that the Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth.

One of my regular criticisms of the political press corps (Albany as well as Washington) is that they are so obsessed with access that they are too timid to ask truly tough questions. Sure, they ask acceptably tough questions but they all too rarely challenge the boundaries of establishment, transcription journalism.

A great example in New York state politics is WAMC Northeast Public Radio supremo Dr. Alan Chartock. He rightly excoriates the New York state legislature for secrecy and for gerrymandering. He refers to the body's redistricting efforts as the 'incumbent protection program' and he is spot on.

He's done countless interviews with Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. The interviews are inevitably chummy and cordial. Chartock sounds almost embarrassed when he asks something vaguely resembling a tough question.

Bear in mind that Silver and Bruno run their chambers with an iron fist, giving rank and file members (even of their own parties) little power. They could ram through true electoral reform and institute a fair electoral system in the snap of a finger, if they really wanted to. Of course they are more than content with re-election rates that are higher than the Communist Chinese National Assembly.

But to listen to Chartock, apparently this gerrymandering takes place in a vacuum. As far as I know, not once has Chartock held Silver's or Bruno's feet to the fire regarding the 'incumbent protection program.' If he did, he might lose his chummy monthly interviews with big shots.

After all, what's the point of having the vaunted access if you don't use it? Maybe being invited to fancy dinner parties is more important.

And on those rare occasions when journalists do push the boundaries, they are often the object of scorn more so than the corrupt folks they are reporting on.

In an investigation for Harper's magazine, Silverstein passed himself off to some as the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. He contacted some of Washington's elite lobbying firms and told them he wanted to burnish the image of Turkmenistan, not mentioning that the country is run by a neo-Stalinist, cult of personality regime. He was sure they already knew and didn't care.

Silverstein writes: the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).

Yet Silverstein's work was attacked by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz.

Even though Silverstein's work exposed an extremely serious corruption of journalism.

Silverstein notes how things have changed in the corporate media landscape. Media docility has made serious investigative journalism much rarer.

He writes: there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.

In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.

Silverstein believes that this timidity is due in large part to the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.

No doubt increasing media ownership by large media companies demanding ever-increasing profits above less profitable quality journalism has played a crippling role. This is evidenced by the now virtually indistinguishable line that once separated news and entertainment.

Perhaps the most telling comment came from former 60 Minutes' producer Chick Lewis. Lewis told Silverstein, "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."

And I think this encapsulates how journalism has changed in the last half century. Journalists were once considered blue collar and identified with working class folks. They took their obligation to public service seriously. They believe it important to stand up for the little guy.

Now, journalism is considered white collar. A college degree is now generally considered an entry requirement. Political journalists now tend to identify more with the politicians they cover, who tend also to be educated and white collar, than with their more diverse readership.

In theory, higher education should lead to higher quality journalism. But in practice, it leads to far more caution. Journalists are taught the boundaries of establishment corporate journalism and more important, to never question them. Journalists learn from textbooks and professors instead of honing their instincts through experience.

Their preconceptions are formed before they ever publish their first piece as a paid reporter. A preconception being that they are transcribers rather than investigators. A preconception being that objectivity and neutrality are the same thing, when they're not.

Will mainstream corporate journalism ever return to being something more than mere transcription? Something more than CSPAN in print? If Silverstein's experience is anything to go by, probably not.