"You're assuming that you represent the public. I don't accept that," said the Leader of the Free World to a clueless reporter (redundant, we know) at GW's latest press conference, reports Jay Rosen [via InstaPundit]:
Whoever can speak to the whole nation becomes a power. There is still a reporters' gallery, and it is still speaking the language of a Fourth Estate. But perhaps its weakness is in speaking a language Americans recognize as theirs. Bush is challenging the press: you don't speak to the nation, or for it, or with it . . .
Intellectually, it's almost a de-certification move against the press corps. There's a constituency for this, and it picks up on long-term trends that have weakened the national press, including a disconnect between Big Journalism and many Americans, and the rise of alternative media systems.
As a first step out of this trap, journalists need to ask themselves: how did we become so predictable?
"The press, of course, is unrepresentative," notes Professor Reynolds:
It isn't elected, nor -- in its views, its background, and its personal characteristics -- is it reflective of the public. (If the public thought like the press, no Republican would ever be elected President.) Nor does the public feel that it is represented by the press. I don't know if it ever did, but back in the day when reporters were more like ordinary people in their habits, incomes, and backgrounds -- the Lou Grant era -- I think it was more plausible to make that claim.
Our rallying cry comes to mind: Because of, not in spite of, stupid!
Comments