Terry Neal over at the Washington Post wrote a column lamenting the recent criticism levelled on the media by bloggers and talk radio against the mainstream media.  According to Neal, the criticisms serve as a diversion from the issues surrounding the story.  Neal's column is only one of many by the MSM and their supporters that attempts to point blame at their critics rather than their faulty work.  The CBS fake documents scandal is used as an example of how inaccuracies by journalists are used to take what he calls the "real issue" surrounding the story. 

If Neal actually thinks the question of President Bush being suspended for missing a physical is more important than the news division of a broadcast television company using fake documents for an expose' two months before a presidential election - regardless of whether the use of those sources was intentionally or unintentionally meant to discredit and embarrass the president - then that's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.  If Neal also thinks that flushing a Koran or any other book - considered holy or unholy - once used by a terrorist is more important than a major news magazine using a single faulty source to report on a government investigation, resulting in riots and deaths, then he's entitled to that belief as well. However, I'm not willing to waste valuable space on this blog to argue how absurd those beliefs are. 

However, Neal's column implies that the mainstream media should be the sole director of topics and issues within the American poltical landscape, and that any interference would be a disservice to a free society:

The historic role of the free press in free democratic societies is that of government watchdog. There have always been journalistic mistakes, controversies and scandals, and there always will be, as long as media are run by human beings. Today, however, what's clearly objectionable is how those mistakes are being used to deflect attention from more important government and political scandals and controversies.

First, we should ask the question, "What is a watchdog?"  A watchdog is a person or party that makes sure no corruption or inaccuracies take place by a person or group they are monitoring.  Hence, how can you be an adequate watchdog if you can't provide accurate facts and information?  Sure; human beings make mistakes, but the mere fact they can possibly make them doesn't mean they should be absolved from criticism when they make one, and should be set aside for the issue that the watchdog wants someone to focus on.  The evidence that the watchdog lays out and the credibility of the evidence or the source is just as important as what or who they are criticizing.

Indeed; the fact that journalists are calling for someone to ignore or set aside criticism for what they would consider as the greater good in advancing issues is a very strange twist of irony.  Neal criticizes the Bush Administration over the arguments and evidence that led to the Iraq War (and once again, I won't argue about the accuracy of his points; others have refuted a number of these before), yet he's willing to give a pass to errors made by journalists.  Where is the consistency?  Are politicians the only people in American society that should be held accountable for their actions, or is it whomever the press decides should be accountable (which would virtually guarantee they never will)?

This also ignores the main tenet of journalism.  A journalist's first job is to report the story, not to advance an issue.  If a journalist can't write a story that is backed by accurate and credible sources and evidence, he's doing a disservice not only to the profession but to the public to which he claims to serve by spreading faulty information.  With expose' stories like the TANG Documents and the Koran flushing that heaps lopsided criticism onto a certain person or group, the absence of credibility and accuracy makes those allegations the equivalent of propaganda.  Why should the American public place faith in the press if they can't get their facts right?

Yet, the blur between reporting and advancing issues has been a problem for the media over the past couple of decades and has resulted in a lack of trust and respect within American society.  That lack of trust and respect has resulted in the drop of subscriptions, drop in ratings, and the reliance of alternative sources by more people as the years have gone by.  When people turn on the news or open up a newspaper, they don't want to be told what they should be concerned about and how they should think.  They only want to know what happened.  Neal and others want to dictate what is and isn't important, and that's not their job.  The blur in this instance is shown though the fact that Neal is described by the Post as a staff writer; however there's little to no difference between what he writes and what a op-ed columnist would write.  There should be a distinction, but just like a number of newspapers, there isn't.

We're seeing more and more evidence, not only from Neal but from others, that the press doesn't simply want to be a watchdog.  They want to be THE watchdog, and they don't want a watchdog watching over them.  It's the equivalent of a crooked pastor that tries to deflect criticism by saying he's doing God's work.  Just as God works through other vessels besides pastors, free societies are enhanced by the numerous voices and viewpoints that are allowed to participate within the political spectrum. 

John Peter Zenger didn't go to trial in 1735 to only give freedom to those who could afford printing presses, but to give freedom to all who had voices and were willing to use them to speak truth without fear of government retaliation.  The blogosphere and the rise of other alternative media is a testament of that belief.  It's too bad that the main beneficiaries of Zenger's trial are the ones who have yet to understand that concept.