The End of Journalism

This post over at QueerSighted.com makes some rather interesting observations:

It has become all too easy to shrug off the decline of legitimate news organizations and "old-fashioned" print media as the Internet and direct and digital cable TV expand by leaps and bounds. But the fact that we've reduced real news and truth to a consumer commodity subject to ratings and sales poses a threat to our freedom that is mostly ignored.

and here's how this threat has manifested itself:

[Rupert] Murdoch [owner of News Corp.] operates most of his major media properties at a loss, slashing ad rates and subscribers rates in order to drive the less well financed family-owned and journalist-owned properties into oblivion. That's his goal with The New York Times. Decades ago news outlets competed with each other through their ability to deliver the best information first, quality of writing and quality of investigative journalism. Today, the Murdoch's of the world have radically changed the paradigm forcing news outlets to compete as business entities mostly through advertising revenue. And with his deep pockets, Murdoch always has the advantage. Murdoch does not see his broadcast and print news ventures as a means to enhance the provision of free information to a free people, Murdoch rather uses his former news and information properties to propagandize his various political agenda--the anti-gay one for example--both through the dissemination of lies and the diversion of circus-like entertainment. And he's brilliant at this. Murdoch has done more damage to American democracy and freedom than a dozen George W. Bushes could ever hope to accomplish.

Why is this so important? Because without a free press there will be no one watching government. Those in a position of power will be able to abuse that power because no one is plastering their misdeeds all over the front pages for all Americans to read. Without an informed populace, voters cannot make sound decisions at the voting booth, and therefore, candidates will find it easier to lie to constituents about their intentions for office.

The blogosphere, while more democratic than traditional print newspapers, is missing something important -- credibility. People trust print news as a source for objective information because there are journalistic standards in place to ensure that that information is reliable. The methods that those like Murdoch engage in threaten to disrupt these journalistic standards, and thus, shift the focus of news gathering from keeping a watchful eye on power to more trivial pursuits, while also having the side effect of reducing the credibility of print journalism.

Executive Privilege v. The Constitution

The Baltimore Sun has a rather misleading headline in today's paper -- "Bush says Congress can talk to aides." Sure, the Bush administration technically did say that; however, the White House is not allowing aides to be questioned on the public record or under oath:

He [Bush] urged them to accept his offer to have Rove and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers talk to congressional investigators behind closed doors, but not under oath. He also pledged to release all White House documents related to the firings.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said it best:

"It is not constructive, and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome. Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability."

So what is the Bush administration's reasoning for disallowing White House aides to testify on the public record and under oath?

White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to congressional leaders that Bush's proposal struck a balance between providing the information that Congress needs and preserving confidences of the president under the doctrine of executive privilege.

Besides making the questioning private and not under oath, he said, the interviews should be permitted only as "a last resort." [emphasis mine]

Preserving executive privilege. This may or may not be constitutional, since we haven't had any serious inquiry into President Bush’s excessive use of executive privilege. Once again, this administration is attempting to concentrate and preserve political power.

And I'm glad that the Democrats are going to be challenging the President’s decision with subpoenas:

"We will move forward to authorize subpoenas for current and former White House and Justice officials, as well as documents," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. of Michigan.

The committee "will take whatever steps are necessary and within our congressional authority to get to the bottom of what has become a horrible mess that is undermining American trust in our federal criminal justice system."

Bush wants to avoid a confrontation, and that's because he knows that the courts will force White House aides to testify on the record, under oath. I, for one, look forward to subpoenas being issued tomorrow -- it's about fucking time that a constitutional confrontation occur. We need to short circuit this idea of a unitary executive if we want to continue to live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship.

This coming confrontation is more important than anything else in politics today -- dare I say it -- it is even more important than the conflict in Iraq. This is about whether or not the executive branch can do whatever it wants without congressional oversight. Clearly, we need to have a balance of power between the three branches of government, and allowing the executive to have this kind of unchallengeable power is not healthy for a functioning democracy.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports that the House approves issuing subpoenas.