Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Last week we found out that he kept the kind of information from [editor Len] Downie that is a deeply serious sin not to disclose to a boss -- the kind that can get even a very good reporter in the doghouse for a long time. He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and "Larry King Live" about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge of Plame's identity.

Sorry, Ms. Howell, I'm not buying it. What Woodward did was a grave error in judgment, a colossal breach of trust, a serious and potentially career-ending mistake (except at the Post, apparently). But a sin? I think not. On first read, I mistook this "sin" stuff for hyperbole, but on second read I couldn't help but hook it up with the following passage in the same story, a direct quote from the AWOL editor Downie:

"But he is not bigger than the newspaper. He has voluntarily humbled himself and acknowledged his errors."

Why the evocative Catholic confessional language? Why the tone of repentance, acknowledgment, the penance of "humiliation?" Weird enough in this article, but what strikes me as even odder is the notion that the greatest "sin" was committed against - gasp! -- the newspaper! Not the grand jury investigation looking into what may turn out to be an act of treason, not the readership the Post purports to serve, not even the general citizenry that expects to benefit from journalistic investigations and thus cuts the media an uneasy legal slack about shielding confidential sources. Remind me again: Who was sinned against? Oh, yeah. The hallowed newspaper. Go figure.

And then Ms. Howell pens the kind of phrase familiar to laity of any religion for dozens of thousands of years: "[Woodward] believes that `when it all comes out,' readers will understand a lot more." Be patient, my little flock. Let the priests interpret events for the unwashed masses and decide the timing and substance of what they need to know. This is precisely the paternalistic clerical condescension that got Martin Luther's knickers in a twist a few centuries ago and had him hunting for a door, a hammer, a piece of parchment and a couple of nails. And we all know how that turned out.

Kinda the same sentiment that's given rise to blogs, come to think about it. Hmmmm ....

Ms. Howell's Assurances Are Not Reassuring

A cursory read of the ombudsman piece gives rise to a vague feeling that yes, "sins" were committed, acknowledgement made, penance assigned and all's well that ends well in Mainstream MediaLand. Woodward apparently now will answer to an editor (appalling to discover that for three decades he hadn't been, but that's for another little essay) and all's right with the world, trust us. Go back to sleep, ye little sheep, while the guardians of our citizen souls - and our democracy - keep watch.

But wait! What's this? On a second read, a third read, a fourth unbelievable read, one discovers that Ms. Howell is giving us these soothing assurances operating with no more information than we -- the misled readers - have. Astounding. Woodward apparently made the appropriate murmurs of contrition, mouthed the rote phrases, Downie backed them up and Ms. Howell scurried forth to sing us a lullabye. But the fact is: Woodward and Downie didn't tell her shit. She apparently knows no details about who the source is, or the nature of the reputed "gossip," or the context of the conversation in which Ms. Wilson's status was so "casually" revealed (and that's another essay I want to write - how does one "casually" drop into an unrelated conversation the CIA status of the spouse of an administration critic? Hmmmm?). Downie and Woodward told her everything would be as right as rain in the morning, don't bother your head with the fussy little details of who what when where why how, just give the readers a soothing little homily and be on your way, Ms. Ombudsman. And she went forth and did their bidding.

Trust us, Ms. Howell's piece breathes, We've examined our journalistic conscience, made some minor adjustments in supervision of famous rogue employees and now we'll go back to our regularly scheduled programming. Trust us.

Uhhhh ... I think not, Ms. Howell, on that trust thing. Been there, done that, and all American citizens got was a lousy little war to die in, based on uninvestigated lies, turbo-charged intelligence claims and planted propaganda. No thanks. Try again. Next time, with some facts, analysis, documentation, details. Then we'll talk.

Nothing to See Here, Move Along

But the most discouraging aspect of  Ms. Howell's Nov. 20 whitewash is the missed opportunity for a truly critical examination of institutionalized media, its current limitations and the possibility for change. Ironically, this gem of a soporific confessional itself highlights everything that's wrong with corporate media today, as follows:

1.    Howell fails to get at the facts herself, just takes down quotes from her "sources" - readers' emails, reporters, a high school journalism teacher, Downie, Woodward. He said, she said, they all said.

2.    Howell fails in her public responsibility as ombudsman to ask the tough questions and demand answers. For example, she reports asking Woodward if his source is the same as Novak's, to which he replies, "That is a good question. I wish I could answer it." And she leaves it there. Just leaves it there. Now granted, I'm simply a lowly blogger, but even I've heard of such a thing as a dogged follow-up question, like: "Are you saying you can't answer because you don't know? Or because you DO know and answering would violate your confidentiality pledge? Give me something to work with here, Bob."

3.    Howell fails to put the story into a larger context, against the backdrop of polls that report Americans don't trust the press, the emerging knowledge of the lies in the run-up to the war (which her employer, to its credit, allowed reporter Dana Milbank to examine here before the invasion), the use - or misuse - of confidentiality agreements between source and reporter. Give us some meat, Ms. Howell. We're dying here.

4.    Howell failed, as Woodward himself failed, to overcome the knee-jerk awe of access that speaking to someone important and a part of history brings. There's a drumbeat reminder running underneath and throughout her piece of all Woodward has done for journalism, namely Watergate. In fact, the second paragraph of the article immediately clamors to remind readers: "Since Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate story more than 30 years ago, they have been heroes to many. Woodward is part of the DNA of the Post newsroom." Her own apparent hero worship appears to have blinded her view of Woodward's "sin," much as Woodward's own access to the Oval Office and its secrets appear to have muffled his awareness of the Machiavellian mechanics of the present administration. Howell and Woodward, one suspects, ask the same approximate level of problematic questions of their sources. Meaning, softball.

In a follow-up ombudsman article on Nov. 27, Ms. Howell acknowledges receiving letters and phone calls charging that she was "way too soft on [Woodward] and on The Post." She then spends the entire column defending Woodward and his methods by quoting ... Woodward defending himself, of course. The whole charade is too depressing to quote in detail (read for yourself if you can stomach it). Suffice to say it's a patronizing piece that instructs readers about the importance of confidential sources, the star reporter's famed impartiality and Pulitzer Prizes, and how common it is to submit questions in advance, as Woodward did with Cheney. Then Ms. Howell ends this condescending piece of self-justifying tripe with this nugget: "When the Plame case ends, I for one will be looking forward to knowing the whole story."

Arrrrghh. If you don't know what the hell is going on, why are you telling us not to worry?

Really, enough is enough. It's insulting to be treated to yet another oh-so-serious Hallmark-Lite moment by the self-servicing modern mainstream media ("Less filling! Tastes great!"). My advice to Ms. Howell is: If you're not going to do the job critically, seriously and fully, it's better to leave it undone than dazzle us with reminders of your facility with high-sounding words and meaningless gestures. These kinds of exercises we've all grown way too familiar with; they're losing their punch through repetition.

Readers deserve better than this. This country deserves better than this. Americans have earned - through this war's sad and sorry waste of blood and money, reputation and spirit - an in-depth analysis into what this all means, this failure to stand clear enough of parasitic entanglements with the establishment to call it on its shit. An honest examination is long overdue about the role of access-privileged media in this country, about governmental manipulation of individual reporters, about how the citizenry in an information-starved democracy can perform its own constitutional duties to elect representatives to implement its collective will.

And if the ombudsman of one of the most hallowed sects of corporate media is not eager to take it on, I suspect the rabble will. How? Let me give you a hint, Ms. Howell: Martin Luther would be blogging were he alive today. Just sayin'.