Of the many images of Hurricane Katrina that endure in the mass consciousness, one of the most indelible is that of CNN's Anderson Cooper, moved literally to tears at the destruction he witnessed in the days after the storm. His reporting from New Orleans and other areas of the Gulf Coast was raw and urgent and absolutely right for the moment and the mood of the country. It transformed Cooper, formerly an obscure CNN field reporter, into not only an overnight celebrity, but also a representative of a media that was squarely on the side of the people, sharing in their pain and feeling their anger. In his shunning of objectivity for connectivity, Cooper became the voice and the vessel of the widespread outrage over the government's handling of Katrina—and his impassioned indignation wrote itself into Katrina's story as a rare moment when Americans and their media were, in many ways, one.
Well. The devastation currently upon us may be taking place on Wall Street rather than Bourbon Street, and its impact may be financial rather than physical in nature—but, all in all, much of the current situation feels familiar, even redundant. Another case of American citizens being betrayed by a government that's supposed to act in their interest. Another case of wide-scale distress that could have been prevented had the government been more diligent in its duties. It's deja-screw, all over again.
So, then: Where's our Anderson? Where's the vessel for the indignation and confusion so many Americans are feeling right now? Where's the voice that merges anger and accountability in its treatment of the credit crisis? As Howard Kurtz asked in yesterday's Reliable Sources, "Where is the sense of outrage in journalism that we saw after the Enron scandal and the other accounting scandals of a half dozen years ago?"
Missing in action, I'd say. Indeed, in the week since the current meltdown transpired, we've seen journalists express shock at Wall Street's implosion (whoa, what just happened?). We've seen them express awe (wow, that just happened). We've seen them engage in intellectual inquiry (how did that just happen?) and explanatory exposition (here's what just happened) and forward-looking analysis (how can we fix what just happened?) and political analysis (how does what just happened relate to the campaign?) and blame-gaming (who's responsible for what just happened?). We've seen a lot of level-headed, even-handed treatment of the crisis. And, as Dean noted last week, much of that treatment has been commendable. But what we have yet to see, in that sober and balanced and occasionally noble coverage, is indignation. Anger. Outrage.
Take a piece that ran in the Media & Advertising section of today's New York Times—"Amid Market Turmoil, Some Journalists Try to Tone Down Emotion"—which analyzes the connection between overly "emotional" reporting and market panic. The emotion in question is not, to be clear, journalists'. Rather, it's words'. (Yep, because everyone's favorite topic of inquiry during moments of national upheaval is semantics.) "For most of the country," the piece begins, "the financial crises of the last few weeks have offered an education in economics. For journalists, they have been a lesson in semantics."
A lesson in semantics? That's what the crises have meant to reporters? "Journalists say there is a narrow gap between their duty to convey the extent of what is happening to banks and markets and causing panic," Richard Perez-Pena writes. And, later,
Each day presents new evidence that finance companies are uniquely vulnerable to a loss of confidence among creditors, trading partners, investors or customers. As a result, rumor, speculation and fear can cripple a bank with shocking speed. That has reporters and editors, so often accused of hyperbole and sowing alarm, parsing their words with unusual care.
Which, hey—this is good stuff, overall. And the fact that the piece verges on stating the obvious (journalists should choose their words carefully? You don't say!) is forgivable in light of the very real journalistic challenge it discusses: navigating the often fine line between reporting on financial turmoil and exacerbating it.
And yet. In the larger context of crisis, the piece's tone—indeed, the entirety of its content--seems slightly off-base at best, hopelessly out of touch at worst. Words, words, words...is that really what journalists should be focusing on while the economy's in a meltdown? On the one hand, sure: Words are what they do. But on the other, the focus on semantics Perez-Pena describes paints a picture of a press corps that, like the government did, misses the point. The piece depicts journalists as, above all, cool and calm and collected—so detached from the magnitude of the economy's difficulties that they can calculate with minute precision the words they should be using to tell their tales of woe. (Deck chairs and the Titanic come to mind.) Compare that sense of semantic separation to, again, Anderson Cooper, whose anger was, among other things, a tacit admission—and even, in some ways, a celebration—of the fact that words, when in it comes to crisis reporting, aren't always enough.
But for Perez-Pena's journalists, it's not merely a matter of words overcoming outrage; in his framework, those journalists don't feel outrage in the first place.
Which is not to say that those journalists—Perez-Pena's or their professional analogues—should lose their tempers as they tell their tales, or that audiences want their journalists to burst into tears—rhetorical or otherwise—when relating new developments of the financial meltdown. Of course not. Nor should the media be engaging in finger-pointing and blame-gaming at this point. The press is right to be looking forward rather than backward, and to be focusing, along with the government, on finding solutions...and, as they do so, to be choosing their words carefully.
It is to say, though, that a little empathy would go a long way in this case. Journalists, after all, like most Americans, must be feeling some sense of anger that the government has, in so many ways, and for so long, put corporate interests ahead of average poeple's. They must be at least a little bit miffed that a portion of their taxes, assuming Hank Paulson gets his way, will go not toward updating the country's infrastructure or improving its public education system, but toward bailing out mortgage companies. They must be feeling some sense of resentment at the fact that Richard Fuld, who helmed Lehman Brothers into its bankruptcy, is walking away with an estimated $65 million in severance pay. They must be just a little bit pissed off about all this. Everyone else is. So why not let that show? Why not bring a little dose of accountability journalism into their reporting? And why not bring a human element into their narratives?
It's not often we get to say this, but mainstream reporters could take a cue, in this case, from Bill O'Reilly. On The Factor last week, the self-styled populist declared, "Every American should be furious about the economic meltdown. It's not your fault, ladies and gentleman. Not my fault. OK? It's the federal government's fault."
This is classic O'Reillian hyperbole, yes, but there's something refreshing in its authenticity. Something, indeed, reminiscent of Cooper's Katrina coverage: something urgent and candid and real. When the public trust has been violated, we want our news reporters to be angry about it. Just like we are.
Gretchen Morgenson, NYT journalist on Bill Moyers friday night
"I'm actually sick about it. I wouldn't say I'm scared. But I'm kind of distraught at it"
And, as Dean noted last week, much of that treatment has been commendable. But what we have yet to see, in that sober and balanced and occasionally noble coverage, is indignation. Anger. Outrage.
Well Meggan, this is an election year, and this particular crisis has deep roots with the congressional democrats, so naturally the media is shy about covering it (hint hint Barack Hussein Obama has taken loads of money from Freddie and Fannie). After all, look who fought the hardest against the Bush administrations’ attempt to amend the Community Reinvestment Act in 2003. I see a not so subtle attempt by you to frame this as a little guy bailing out the wall street corporate fat cats without recognizing that the homeowners least capable of making their mortgage payments are the ones who are going to lose everything if this bailout doesn’t go though.
Just saw a comment that mentioned that Obama has taken a lot of money from "Freddie and Fannie."I would like to know what real evidence exists to support this claim.The same person, comments that this bailout will keep homeowners from losing their homes.Again,where is the evidence?A fact here is this;the economy is based on confidence, and this brain dead Bush administration has sucked the confidence out of this country like a twenty dollar crack whore on the back streets of Newark.
Just saw a comment that mentioned that Obama has taken a lot of money from "Freddie and Fannie."I would like to know what real evidence exists to support this claim.
Here you go , lots of “D” with Obama on this one, including the Chair of the oversight committee. Or is this not “real” enough for you?
The same person, comments that this bailout will keep homeowners from losing their homes. Again, where is the evidence?
Not all homeowners to be sure, and quite honestly a lot of the people who are being foreclosed on deserve it, they bit off more than they can chew. They as well as the companies who lent them the money should all go down. But for the more marginal cases, no one will be able to get credit to refinance for more favorable terms unless the banks are willing to write them new mortgages. If there is no bailout, credit will get very thigh very fast.
A fact here is this; the economy is based on confidence, and this brain dead Bush administration has sucked the confidence out of this country like a twenty dollar crack whore on the back streets of Newark.
That’s an interesting interpretation considering that the Bush administration was well ahead of the curve in this one, to bad Obama n’ friends saw it differently.
TDC could care less about Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac; or McCain's campaign's own ties to those organizations, his responsibility for the meltdown, or his role in the Keating Five.
TDC's voting for....someone else. No one. He's just courageously speaking out against Obama...for no reason at all. After all, TDC's totally unbiased...at least in his own mind.
You are right, I own my own home so I could care less, in so much as it does not directly affect me. As far as or McCain's campaign's ties to Freddie and Fannie, the open secrets database speaks for itself. Who was it, for the record, who has the #2 spot on that donor list?
Oh, yes and for the record I will be voting for McCain. He may not be ideal, but when comparing him to a inflated media created hack Chicago machine politician like Barack Hussein Obama, there is no contest.
McCain's much more involved with F & F than Obama was. Everyone but you seems to know it. Rick Davis' role makes what Obama took look like Monopoly money.
As for the Chicago political machine junk, maybe you could try to convince a woman you work with that watches Dancing With the Stars regularly. People that read, not so much . Daley's they guy McCain called "the greatest US commerce secretary ever". Have fun defending McCain, bubba, I will enjoy watching it. I can't wait for Max Boot quotes!
You mean a firm that one of McCain’s advisors worked for is more involved in F&F don’t you? And who was it who has taken more money in the past 3 years from F&F than most congressmen have taken in a lifetime from F&F?
Despite Factcheck’s laughable defense, Obama’s relationship with the corrupt Chicago machine political scene can be summed up with the following: Yassir massa Stroger, yassir massa Jones, yassir massa Daley, yassir massa Mell, I’ll toe the line for a Senate seat! Reading Factchek is on this subject is about as credible as hearing boy wonder and mob money launderer Alexi Giannoulias personally testifying to Obama the other night on the TV news.
It going to be so fun watching you all pout when Obama loses. Better stock up on the paxil now boy.
Oh, and since we are on the subject, guess who said this in 2006 as part of a push for F&F reform legislation (hint there is no Hussein in the name):
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
Davis isn't an advisor. He runs McCain's campaign. And you can't argue your way out of McCain's role in deregulation throughout his career. He's much more entrenched, and splitting hairs won't save your argument. You're wasting your time. And McCain doesn't have to get his campaign funds straight from F & F: he just gets it from other people (I think I saw that two dozen F & F lobbyists raised 12 million for his campaign).
As for Obama, was he taking money to help Fanny Mae give out and resell bad loans? Can you prove that's why he took contributions? If you don't understand it, that you are alluding to some unknown thing Obama must have did (wink wink) rather than things your candidate actually did, then really there is nothing to say. If there's corruption involved in campaign funds alone, then McCain must be more corrupt when it comes to taking funds from AIG (check your opensecrets source).
McCain probably wanted to 'reform' F & F by privatizing them. However, even if he had the best interest of America at heart, that bill wouldn't have made a dent in the subprime mortgage crisis. So no points there.
Making racist obscure statements do nothing to back your claim about Obama's link to the Chicago machine, or specifically, anything he might have done. You have proved nothing by disparaging the source.
By the way, I could care less about Obama's middle name. The fact that you have to go there makes you sound like some Ann Coulter wannabe. But what do you do when you've long run out of facts? You get your information from Hot Air. Sadly, that's all it is.
Davis isn't an advisor. He runs McCain's campaign. And you can't argue your way out of McCain's role in deregulation throughout his career. He's much more entrenched, and splitting hairs won't save your argument.
Rememebr, its not “deregulation” its reregulation. I’m surprised that your degree in comparative literature from Vasser or Smith or wherever didn’t give you the noodle to figure that one out.
As for Obama, was he taking money to help Fanny Mae give out and resell bad loans? Can you prove that's why he took contributions?
Can you prove Obama isn’t a Muslim? That’s right, didn’t think so, so please dispense with your bullshit questions.
If there's corruption involved in campaign funds alone, then McCain must be more corrupt when it comes to taking funds from AIG (check your opensecrets source).
Wrongo jackass, Dodd is #1 followed by Obama for taking AIG’s money. You just got lazy with that one … too easy.
McCain probably wanted to 'reform' F & F by privatizing them.
I thought F & F was private? Wasn’t that why they were all over Palin the other day? Does this mean she was right?
However, even if he had the best interest of America at heart, that bill wouldn't have made a dent in the subprime mortgage crisis. So no points there.
You should wipe the Obama induced ejaculation off your crystal ball, I don’t think it works.
Making racist obscure statements do nothing to back your claim about Obama's link to the Chicago machine, or specifically, anything he might have done. You have proved nothing by disparaging the source.
Yassa massa!
You get your information from Hot Air. Sadly, that's all it is.
Right is right buddy boy, dont matter where they come from.
TDC, weren't you linking to factcheck.org when they ran a story debunking rumors about Palin? But when they turn to a story vindicating Obama in any way, they suddenly lack any credibility. Interesting.
The debate about who received more donations from F&F seems a bit misguided here, as neither connection really tells us anything about the candidate. It seems silly to carry on about Obama's donations when McCain has equally "damning" connections. The whole argument seems to me a colossal distraction from uncovering root problems and assigning real blame. The unfortunate truth for McCain is that he is on record, year after year, supporting the deregulation that made this crisis possible, and proudly so. The idea that rooting through some of Obama's donation receipts absolves him of some responsibility is a fantasy borne of the horse race, and the idea that the media as a whole is greeting the story with muted outrage out of some desire to protect Obama might be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. You are at war with reality. The reason McCain gets more criticism on this score is simply because he is more in the wrong.
It's the most obvious statement one can make right now, but apparently it requires making: George W. Bush has been president for the last 8 years. He comes from the same political party as John McCain, and the two of them, in concert with other Republicans, have pursued a economic policy that has led us to ultimate disaster. You can stoke irrational fears about Obama as a frightening machine-made robo-politician all you want (most neutral observers would find your "yassa massa" characterization as false as it is racist), but even as a caricature it pales in comparison to the very real prospect of an unchecked continuation of the status quo.
Can you prove Obama isn’t a Muslim? That’s right, didn’t think so, so please dispense with your bullshit questions.
One of the best argument responses ever. Ha ha ha ha. Ever! Screw college, how about taking a high school logic class!
Palin. You're right, she's a friggin genius. Criticism of her (at least by me) is off the table! She deserves to be VP, I've never refueled in Ireland. And I definitely can't see Russia from my house! But I do have a passport...
Open Secrets
Do some reading about the Reform Institute's donations from AIG if you weren't really for "McCain, right or wrong". What a weak rebuttal. You're actually going to vote on that?
Too bad Will County is going for Obama.
Ha ha ha.
He's still getting paid.
It going to be so fun watching you all pout when Obama loses. Better stock up on the paxil now boy.
By the way, have you seen this exclusive video of Palin? You're right, so much fun.
I heard Obama say on the radio that he had called the Congressional "leadership" and offered to make himself available from the campaign trail if there was "anything he could do to help".
This guy is right out in front of the financial crisis, isn't he? He'll be a great president, as long as he can check in with his "leaders" to see if anything needs to be done, that is.
I heard Obama say on the radio that he had called the Congressional "leadership" and offered to make himself available from the campaign trail if there was "anything he could do to help".
If he had stated anything different you would have said he declared himself President and you'd have called him "The One". He's not President yet, is he? Or have you already thrown in the towel after watching the Palin/McCain ticket the last 24 hours?