This was confirmed for me when I watched Rather's exclusive interview with Saddam before the war in Iraq began. It was the work of a man who did not know what he was ultimately for, or why he was taken in blindfold to the Palace that day. He did know, however, that no one else in the press had succeeded in landing an interview with Saddam since his inclusion in the American President's "axis of evil." No one had done it, so Rather did.
And in the room where his encounter with evil (so declared) took place, Dan Rather, it seemed to me, had come armed with nothing stronger than "ask the questions, when necessary ask the tough questions" of Saddam Hussein-- the mass murderer and tyrant who ruled in terror over a closed society, a republic of dense fear, where question-asking got you killed. "I'm here for my interview."
That was a situation where journalism, the religion, failed the believer. It was the wisdom of the news tribe, and the moral sense it had developed about its methods, but also the questions it never asked itself and had no answers for... all that sent Rather to Baghdad and gave him no better--alas, no deeper--instruction than, "Bring 'Face the Nation' to Saddam Hussein." The anchor man looked lost. Saddam looked happy. I still don't know what Rather thought he was going to accomplish.
Jeff Sharlet, the new editor of The Revealer, read a draft of this essay. He had this to say about a belief in journalism, the profession:
I think I speak for a few in saying I don’t believe in the profession. And neither can true reformers. By the time he was ready to get out, Luther did not belief in the Church. Spinoza did not believe in the old god of the Jews. Jeremiah did not believe in the compact.
Religious reformers may use the political language of “reform” rather than “revolution,” but they have an advantage unavailable to, say, a Republican or Democratic Party reformer — the absolute freedom to do as one pleases, since God does not depend on their belief. Likewise, a reform priest of journalism might believe in communication, but he or she has the absolute freedom to tear everything else up, including the profession, and even the idea of a profession.
I don't think we know how deeply doubt can be driven into journalism-- by people who are yet journalists. But I have listened to American correspondents who reported on the siege of Sarajevo, and the failures of the West in those years, which included the failures of their own press. Whatever they believe in now, it isn't what they began in journalism with. That story died for them.







Article comments
1 - Docv
God, why do the religious nuts always write so much unreadable blather? Try beliefnet. :)