For any of you who are still interested in the Radar vs. Alter/ Edsall spat. I've got exactly what you've been waiting for -- a piece explaining the historical significance of this tempest in a teapot.
I teach media and politics at Columbia and I was on hand for the various disputed discussions. In my previous HuffPo post I presented my recollections which contradicts Jebediah Reed's Radar report. Ultimately however it doesn't matter whether Edsall was joking when he called David Broder "the Voice of the People" (I think he was) or whether Jonathan Alter was upset by Mike Gravel's unorthodox views (I think he wasn't). The real question is why Reed found these incidents worthy of a news story and what his initial report and this news junky dust-up says about the state of American journalism.
Like every proverbial 'young man in a hurry" Reed has a big project -- one that is worthy of his apparent intelligence and ambition. He sees the old media beginning to crumble but wants to be the one who sets the charges and presses the button. His ambition is right: his tactics and targets this time are wrong.
On the afternoon in question, Reed saw what everyone, including the Columbia students, knew was a media stunt for NBC's Today Show -- Gravel driving up to Columbia his alma mater in a Checker cab. Despite a fender bender on the way and some trouble parking the cab, there wasn't much of a story. Gravel was great, the students were enthusiastic, everyone was happy. Basking in the glow of a beautiful afternoon, a crowd of us including Alter, Reed, Gravel and a few others walked down Broadway for a bite to eat. Along the way we bumped into Edsall and the disputed conversation about Broder took place. What Edsall said in passing on the street about his colleague (even if it wasn't a joke) was NOT NEWS. Reporting this off-the-cuff comment is a cheap shot, pure and simple.
But Reed couldn't resist a slam at the old media boys -- so he ignored the old rules of journalism, which would have filtered any comment about Edsall's joke.
I understand the temptation to work one's big idea into 'the story.' I do it in my work all the time and I admit that I have sometimes succumbed to the temptation to over-interpret the evidence to support my big thesis. But journalists, like historians, undermine their credibility when they try to make a story where there isn't one.
Now, regarding Alter's conversation with Gravel in the restaurant. This was an age-old situation -- a journalist and a politician sharing a beer and having an informal conversation about politics. Such off the record discussions allow for mutual education. I could provide dozens of examples of presidents whose decision-making was shaped by such interactions. That's why the off-the-record rule must be respected. How Alter sported his blazer and ate his salad are also unworthy of journalistic comment. To interpret how Alter looked into his bowl as some sort of a rebuff to Gravel completely crosses the line into pure speculative gossip. And boring gossip at that.
Now I know that Radar is all about bridging the divide between gossip, style and politics. But this new style of political reporting is dangerous because it feeds the suspicion that new media is a free-for-all filled with irresponsible hacks trying to make a name for themselves without concern for journalistic rules. Reed may not be a hack, but he should be wary of being labeled one, even by people he doesn't respect. That would be a great shame because we need Reed and his serious colleagues in the political bloggosphere.
As I have written and taught for years, the old media has fairly consistently failed the American people for decades, not just during Bush II's reign. The new media are on the side of right and I wish Reed and his colleagues great success in their challenge to the old media club. But it's not enough for Reed and his generation of journalists to smash the old guard, they will have to build upon the rubble. If we as a society are going to have any sort of a reliable, credible media in the future, new media will have to establish and maintain a level of credibility both with the public and with the politicos they cover. Otherwise very soon journalism will be nothing but gossip -- or at least that's how the majority of Americans will perceive it. In the long run, the public will not just dismiss the old media; they will dismiss all journalists including Reed and his ilk. And politicians will trust no one but their own staff advisors.
The Bush administration has been a fiasco largely because we have an ill-informed president who doesn't trust the press, a dysfunctional press corps that isn't worthy of trust and a public that doesn't trust anyone but can still be swayed by appeals to patriotism. We can't afford to continue down this road. Reed and his generation have the opportunity and the responsibility to help set us right.