Barack Sweeps Potomac Primary While Journalists Creep

I voted in the Potomac Primary yesterday, a controversial act in my line of work.

Here in Silver Spring, Maryland - located 20 minutes from Washington, D.C. -- you can hardly swing a cat without hitting a media person.

So I watched my back as I went in the early afternoon to my local polling place.

Sure enough, while there I ran into two neighbors. Fortunately, neither of them work in media.  We gabbed a bit about the weather - cold, but not unmanageably so;  about our respective children - busier and sassier than we'd like --  and then went our separate ways.

After doing my duty, I  breathed a little sigh of relief as I climbed back into my stationwagon: I had been spotted, but not by anyone who would question my decision to exercise my right to vote.

If this sounds to you like unnecessary High Drama, please bear with me.

Journalists in America are under siege - in growing numbers of instances, from each other.

It is true that consumers who once viewed us as protectors of the public trust now hold most journalists in, shall we say, low esteem.  The reasons are many, and, as a media critic, I too have taken issue with several aspects of the journalism industry over the years, chief among them, the industry leadership's inability to invest substantially in recruiting, hiring, and retaining writers and editors who are not white men.  (Although these days, I suppose I should use the term "content producers" when refering to writers and editors.)

The past few years have brought an explosion of  ridicule, criticism, sheer hatred upon journalists that is all out of proportion to the shortcomings of the institution, and to the individual failings of reporters and editors.  The rise of the blogosphere is of course part of the problem: technology now allows any kook or self-righteous idiot with a high-speed connection to call himself a "media critic."

Then again, there were several high profile ethics scandals in the past decade that rightly caused the industry to take a hard look at its operating practices: From the case of the Fabricating Boston Twins, Mike Barnicle and Patricia Smith in the late 1990s,  to the Outrageous Obfuscations of Jayson Blair in New York in 2003, consumers were understandably shocked by blatant quality control failures at two major "reputable" newspapers.  Thereafter flowed a veritable Cavalcade of Foolishness from journalists who should have known better, employees of newspapers,  broadcast outlets,
Magazines, and upstart start-up web publictions.

The net result is that a kind of McCarthyism has taken hold in American newsrooms, an over-reaching response to a problem that was (and remains) very real, but which is far from the most Deadly Sin facing journalists in this business at this time.

I'm all for greater transparency from journalists: I've worked in enough Big Time News Organizations to know a Faker when I see one - and also to understand why so many Fakers are elevated up the Peter-Principle Ladder of Success time and time again. (If you're into this season of HBO's stellar series "The Wire," pay close attention to the newsroom sequences: the nuances of The Mediocre White Reporter's Management Suck Up Ritual are highly instructive.)

But when I hear newsroom managers like those at The Washington Post discouraging their staff from voting (as Len Downie and Donald Graham have); when I read that reporters at The Denver Post know that their editor, Gregory L. Moore,  "honestly, would rather they didn't" take part in local caucuses, I wonder if we're throwing out a large and extremely promising baby with the bath water.  I laughed grimly at a  broadcast of the NPR-syndicated Diane Rehm Show the day after Super Tuesday: Anne Kornblut, an ace Washington Post political correspondent, was put on the spot by a sour-sounding caller name of "Joe-ce-lin," and forced to admit that she absolutely will not vote in this season's primaries and general elections.  Then again, Kornblut does cover the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-NY), a bright, hard line of demarkation that only a few campaign-beat journalists should have to mind.)

Consumers of traditionally-delivered news - what's left of them -- don't worry about journalists who vote.  They worry about journalists who are too fat and happy to bother connecting with the lives of real every day working folk. For the past decade, too many scribes have become so disconnected from "Real People" that they hardly know how to meet and deal on the streets; the ascension of emailing, social networking sites and the like has only exacerbated an unfortunate trend that began in the 1980s, when rafts of college grads with advanced degrees began flooding into newsrooms, looking for a taste of that Woodward-Bernstein Glamour.

An informed, honest, down-to-earth journalist can and should vote, as long as they do not make public their balloting, do not actively campaign for any candidate or issue, or participate in voter registration drives. 

I'm all for upping the ante of accountability and transparency for journalists - especially for those members of the national press corps who regularly engage in shady, unsavory dealings in their own private lives even while seeking to expose public officials for the same.  But with so many other immense challenges facing news organizations, watchdogging reporters and editors on the subject of their voting habits is just empty posturing.