zlacker

[parent] [thread] 0 comments
1. pasaba+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-04-02 22:18:25
I know that the watergate scandal was in the 70's, but it's generally held to be a landmark of great investigative journalism. A few years ago, it came out that 'deep throat' was actually Mark Felt, a former FBI director with an axe to grind against Nixon. So this great demonstration of the power of a free press turned out to be actually a couple of ambitious journalists serving as the mouthpiece for a three-letter agency, and indeed, the FBI at that time (and Mark Felt especially) were a paradigm of overreach.

Which is kind of a depressing turn on what was once one of the American journalistic epics about the power of truth. Obviously it's hard to generalize, but it does seem to me that this is part of the advantage governments and companies see in a free press - it's a way to launder information, so you can be in every way obviously a rat, but have the voice of a trusted, independent organization.

I don't know if the watergate scandal was characteristic. Certainly, it's an extreme example. But if politicians and statesmen couldn't play journalists, why would they invite them to every occasion? If journalists were investigators in the sense that police are investigators - powerful people would quickly learn to shun them, just as criminals avoid every possible interaction with the police. Seems to me that investigative journalism is, in the final analysis, a way of giving credibility to a process that is at best haphazard and informal, and at worst, simple propaganda.

[go to top]