Besides the value of airing secrets, liberals also used to defend something else: the Fourth Estate. While conservatives demonized the mainstream press, liberals -- though aware of the elusiveness of objectivity and the institutional flaws of big media -- insisted on the value of news organizations that aspire to neutrality and professionalism. In the Libby affair, however, progressives have pummeled "establishment" reporters as administration shills. One result is that they're again aiding the right's cause -- not by justifying secrecy in the name of security but by delegitimizing the very idea of an establishment media that plays a democratic role�I had to rub my eyes to make sure I was actually reading Greenberg use Bob Novak as a case in point in lamenting unfair liberal demonization of the mainstream media. I know it's the TNR position that such demonization will prove counterproductive for liberalism -- I disagree with that, and share Matt's general attitude on this subject. But whatever, it's a perfectly defensible position -- if you don't cite Bob Novak to make your case! (Greenberg's a Bob Woodward fan -- why not just stick with him?) As he writes in his piece, "to read the recent attacks on Novak, you'd think he were just another GOP foot soldier, not a professional journalist who abides by a code of conduct�"Take Novak. Given the "Prince of Darkness" persona he adopts for his TV punditry -- smirkingly churlish, playfully abrasive, forever promoting a staunch conservative line -- it's no surprise that he irks liberal viewers. But those with longer memories should also respect his distinguished career. Though his syndicated pieces may no longer be required reading for understanding Washington, for years Novak and his partner, Rowland Evans, served up the rare, news-filled column that rested on hard reporting. Even liberals could appreciate the inside dope the pair delivered; it just meant screening out the right-wing asides.
You would think! Crazy, I know. Amy Sullivan wrote a very good piece back in 2004 that makes a strong, example-filled case for the idea that, "for about as long as Novak has been a first-string Washington pundit and raconteur� he's been dealing in factual mistakes, ethical slips, and personal attacks that would have done in a less well-positioned journalist. Today, he thrives thanks largely to his prominence, his independence, and the clubby support of a media elite whose standards he openly mocks." I'll just recommend revisiting that piece rather than filling this post with any more block-quoted excerpts. Suffice it to say that, even in Novak's old "Evans-and-Novak" column days, those columns involved plenty of newsy information culled from political gossip Novak would discuss with his congressional sources, that that information indeed could be interesting, but that there's genuinely nothing about the guy's "code of conduct" that has ever been worthy of veneration.
--Sam Rosenfeld
