Get your ow
n diary at DiaryLand.com! contact me older entries newest entry

12:05 a.m. - 2002-11-04
Americana
The following is an e-mail I wrote to a Mr. David Corn in response to an article that he wrote for Salon discussing the controversy surrounding the 'outing' of the author of Primary Colors, Joe Klein. Since I apparently decided to settle firmly into my worn yet trusty soapbox, I figured I ought to post it here, too.

When I was a child, I had aspirations of becoming a journalist. Of course, youth is a time where things are very much black and white: 'the news' is what happened that day; just the facts, ma'am. I helmed the production of my first paper at age eight, where I reported with scathing accuracy on things like my sister's toilet training, and the upcoming planned dinners for the Lavin family. I didn't offer opinions on any of these occurences, I simply noted that they were, in fact, occuring.

I recognize that there is a difference between an editorial and a plain-jane article, but it seems to me that imbedded within the ethics of journalism itself there lies a subtle tabloid factor... even for Pulitzer caliber spreads. The media has the power to influence mass opinion, and always seems to exersize the option to do so. It's a dirty business, I expect, to know that the best way to solidify your career will be to take someone else down. Not that this is a horrifying prospect, when applied to someone who warrants it. Hitler, as (a rather obvious) example. Myself, I prefer exoneration journalism, not that it happens often. It's so much more satisfying to see someone crash and burn, apparently.

At least this is how I, average Joan Q. Citizen, view the press. Somewhat informative, if one can sort through the sly (or overt) placement of adjectives and other various grammatical implements commonly refered to as 'spin'. See, I expect it from politicians and the like. Politics is chess, a brutal game with the glossy veneer of aethetics. (Don't mind my melodrama; I am only twenty-five, after all... and I do still hope to become a writer. At least I am not so far gone as to lack any sense of self-depreciation, right?) But just for once, I would like someone to explain to me why most reporters are mini-politicians, and just what the term 'honest reporting' means. Is mudslinging still considered 'honest' even if it falls short of several key components essential to fulfill the ethical/moral quota? You seem to be well-versed on the topic of ethical reporter dos and don'ts, so I thought I would pose the question to you.

I am not attempting to be a smart ass here, Mr. Corn. I have no idea if your e-mail is even active anymore, or if you read any of the mail sent to it yourself. I truly am looking for an all-bullshit aside answer.

I saw Primary Colors tonight, and decided to go online to research the 'anonymous' aspect further; I had no idea that that particular dispute had been settled a while back. Of course I quickly discovered the identity of the author as well as several articles lambasting him for his outlandish dishonesty, written by others in your field, of course.

See, I think it's like this: there is a part in the movie where the Kathy Bates character is telling the 'protaganist' why they cannot use the dirty information they have gathered on Stanton's opponent, and it has to do with the nature of the opponent's indiscretions. Most notably, how 'human' they are. We are all subject to our passions on occasion; no one is beyond reproach in that arena. I suppose the rule of thumb for journalistic integrity, in my mind, is if the 'scoop' in question has any validity beyond suface value sensationalism. If it doesn't, then perhaps it is material that we don't have the right to broadcast.

In your article for Salon you postulated, "Since I do not believe public outbursts can be placed off-the-record ex post facto, I do not feel bound by Klein's parting comment" (to keep his comments to your friend Mr. Weisberg off the record). To put it bluntly, I think that was a cheap shot. You also seemed to be confused about how Mr. Klein could be that upset, driven to an emotionally volatile outburst towards another colleague who had written an article attempting to 'out' him earlier that week. Obviously, Mr. Corn, you are not a stupid man... you are a rather excellent writer, actually. Very persuasive.

So you must then be aware that is it quite possible that Mr. Klein was reacting in an all too human, flawed manner to your colleague's accusations. He was anonymous for a reason, was he not? Whatever that reason was (book sales, ect.) is not important, not really. Sure, everyone was beside themselves with curiousity as to who penned the 'novel', and it would have been a great story to break. But how does that morph into a moral perrogative? Who said it was anyone's right to know the author? Why is Mr. Klein required to come clean about whether or not he wrote the damn thing when pressured? Honestly, if Mr. Klein hadn't been the the author, do you really think the one who was would have told the truth when asked?

It isn't about the moral atrocities this man commited against the public and the journalistic community, it's about whether or not we had the absolute ethical appropriateness in demanding to know in the first place. I believe we didn't.

So while I find your writing to be captivating and incredibly well presented, I find your points to be humorously ironic (given the fact that articles like the one you wrote for Salon are the precise reason I am cynical when it comes to journalism and journalists, not due to Mr. Klein and his attempts at, to use the vernacular, covering his ass). I am also irritated by the high level of pretentiousness lacing the whole piece. Was Klein fired for 'lying to the public'? No. Of course not. I do not know the intimate details of your personal life, Mr. Corn, but if I did, I am sure I could uncover facts you might not want every random stranger on the street that has a quarter for the paper to be privy to.

I think that is one of the main points of Primary Colors, or at least something I retained, anyhow (we all know that movies are to books as previews are to movies, so I am sure I don't know the whole score). Certain dirt is fair game: Whitewater, misuse of public funds, 'no new taxes', ect. That's news. The rest of it (day forty of the Monica watch, where certain cigars go, and who chooses to disclose whether they wrote 'Primary Colors') is tawdry, soap opera-esque Americana.

Use your considerable talents on something more worthwhile, and restore some faith in the media for this jaded old twenty-five year old. It would be Pulitzer Prize worthy, I promise you.

(Also, I wanted to add that I do realize this article must have been written some time ago. Damn the information age; not only do you get news in a nano-second, it seems to have a shelf life roughly the length of the Constitution's. I apologize because I am sure you don't want to hear my opinions on something that is fresh only in my mind.)

--Sara.

 

previous - next

about me - read my profile! read other Diar
yLand diaries! recommend my diary to a friend! Get
 your own fun + free diary at DiaryLand.com!