RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Secret Media Dinners are really to Serve the Public even Better Journalism – Really

By LisaB on April 28, 2009 at 5:25 PM in Current Affairs

I can’t say I’m one of those people mourning the demise of many newspapers. That’s a surprise to me personally. I used to subscribe to the New Republic and The Nation, Newsweek, Time, Vanity Fair, U.S. News and World Report, the Christian Science Monitor and a host of other local newspapers.

No longer. Here’s one reason why. Today WaPo has a piece by Howard Kurtz about “The Media Elite’s Secret Dinners.” Unbelievable. Kurtz reports about a series of “off-the-record” dinners with “journalists” and guests such as Rahm Emanuel, King Abdulla II, etc.

For more than a year, David Bradley, the Atlantic’s soft-spoken owner, has hosted these off-the-record dinners at a specially built table in his glass-enclosed office overlooking the Potomac. And the guests, from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to Jordan’s King Abdullah II, are as A-list as they come.

“It’s just a joy for me,” Bradley says. “These are reflective, considered conversations, which is hard to do when you’re going after headlines for the next day’s publication.” While the guests seem quite open, says the businessman who bought Atlantic a decade ago, he is new enough to journalism “that I can’t tell the difference between genuine candor and deeply rehearsed candor.”

What’s to like in this paragraph? “Reflective, considered conversations”? I’m sure the rest of us wouldn’t know how to do that. His guests being “open?” OPEN? I guess this guy thinks he’s getting a side order of truth with that main course of reflection. Heh. I’m not persuaded that politicians will put out for just a meal. If that’s all it takes to get them to tell the truth, we should just turn the Capitol into an all-you-can-eat Kobe beef buffet (or black truffles for the vegetarians).

Kurtz has a few other thoughts.

Still, the catered gatherings also sound rather cozy, like some secret-handshake gathering of an entrenched elite. Are the top-level officials, strategists and foreign leaders there for serious questioning or risk-free spin sessions? And what exactly is the journalistic benefit if the visitors are protected by a shield of anonymity?

The guests “have either been frank with us or provided a reasonable facsimile of frankness,” says Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg. “Would I like for them to be able to go on the record? Of course. But I do think you lose something because then it becomes just another press conference.”

So, they acknowledge the dinners may not produce “real frankness” but feel that at least it’s a more intimate way to get non-answers than a presser? What’s the payoff for the journos? And WTH, if I may say so, is the payoff for the media consuming public?

Bradley, a native Washingtonian, had long been intrigued by the Sperling breakfasts, the 35-year ritual conducted by the Christian Science Monitor’s Godfrey Sperling until his retirement. But those were on-the-record affairs open to any hungry journalist, while Bradley’s dinners are both uber-exclusive and decidedly discreet.

“On-the-record.” Yeah, that’s a little bit different. Hmmmm. Are these the people regularly decrying the lack of “transparency” and violations of so-called “sunshine” laws in government? Discreet, exclusive dinners do not, to me, suggest openness.

Most of the journalists like the [dinner] format, which has allowed for a handful of comments to be placed on the record with the guest’s consent. “The exchanges you have with people in power are so artificial that we wanted to get to know them better and find out what they really think,” says the New Yorker’s Mayer.

Now this is interesting. I think this guy is suggesting that if he knows someone better, how that person thinks, then he can report better on that person. I disagree. Thinking you know someone or how they think is actually a shortcut to doing the work to find out what is really going on. Know how someone really thinks? Well, then you can dismiss criticism of that person. Or you can go on pundit shows and parlay that “understanding” into long editorials about what that person is “really” doing, thinking or planning. Feh. No one knows anyone that well.

Marcus, a Post columnist and editorial writer, says the sessions “have been very valuable, partly because it’s a relaxed setting, not a set of gotcha moments.”

The veil of secrecy has prevented the Atlantic from garnering any credit, at least until now. “I launched it for the romance of it,” Bradley says. “It’s more book club than it is clubhouse.”

“Relaxed setting”, “romance of it,” “book club” atmosphere. This sounds like an affair to me, or at least a tryst. This is not serious journalism. It’s story telling time on many levels. Ripping the “veil of secrecy” so the Atlantic can get some credit? Credit for what?

In most any area I can think of, expensive dinners are not designed to foster a more critical understanding of other people. Knowing what appetizer Ben Bernacke likes won’t make anyone more knowledgeable about his likely position on the economy this week. But sharing a taste for rum-soaked scallops might make one bond with Ben, if just in a small way.

But that creates a feeling of familiarity. And it’s a lot harder to be critical of those we feel we have something in common with. People will tell you that they can write any way about anyone, but as with all complex things in life, it’s a matter of degrees. “Lie down with dogs and you’ll get fleas.” Break bread with a politician; share a taste for gingerbread with caramel sauce and you will believe that guy has, at least, good taste in desserts.

The rest is downhill. I wouldn’t pay $ .25 for anything written as a result of a “get together” like this.

  • alibe

    Just like the embeds for the Iraq War. Or as I always referred to them, “inbeds”. This is the lamest excuse excuse for suckups. Journalists would never be a part of this. As you can see, we have no journalists. These are just schmoozers.

    • http://noquarter foxyladi14

      well that splains it.no wonder he gets good press.he wines and dines them.

  • NomNomNom

    wth is “a reasonable facsimile of frankness”?
    near to half truths? believable lies?

    “But I do think you lose something” (by going on the record) “because then it becomes just another press conference.”
    An anonymous unverifiable statement better than a statement someone wants to stand behind??

    jeebus, it’s no wonder no one wants to buy their crap.

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      No kidding, huh? How is it that this is what passes for “journalism” these days? Honestly – does People care that the Atlantic is horning in on their territory?

      Great post, LisaB!

  • sam
  • Diana L. C.

    But that creates a feeling of familiarity. And it’s a lot harder to be critical of those we feel we have something in common with.

    Thank you for posting this. Nothing bothers me more about the current political culture in this country than the fact that the journalists have pushed their way into it rather than maintained their much-needed objectivity.

    First, there is no way the conversations on the part of the politicians are frank. I believe they are rehearsed mentally to appear frank.

    More upsetting to me, however, is the nature of this type of thing. How will the journalists react to any type of opposing opinions to the ones given in these little dinners? Won’t they, as LisaB poinst out, go with the people with whom they just broke bread? They will obviously be predisposed to discount any opposing views, remembering the warm fuzzies and the full belly they got while in the vicinity of the politician.

    This attitude on the part of journalists mirrors the attitudes in management and educational administration.

    I’ve worked under managers who look the other way rather than confront the poor work records of the people under them with whom they spend the most time around the water cooler and the break area–the ones who attend the little “mixers.” Some employee working diligently but not into smoozing so much gets passed over for someone less competent or less concerned about his/her job performance. Or that diligent employee ends up having the carry part of the job for the smoozer. No bad job review for the smoozer, that’s for sure.

    I’ve worked as a teacher and also noticed the principals and vice-principals looking the other way at bad, lazy, incompetent teachers because these teachers attend the same social functions and because they will make sure to stop into the administrator’s office and brown nose. I even had one principal who looked the other way and made sure a teacher who would sometimes come into school drunk got his ass covered because he attended many of the same civic functions and social clubs as the principal did. No bad job reviews for that teacher.

    Journalists must maintain objectivity to do their jobs correctly. These dinners and things like them have probably gone a long way to cause the recent disaster that we call the MSM. Only the journalists think they are doing a bang up job. I am surprised he didn’t know enough not to admit to the practice.

  • Docelder

    To the extent that being “in” is likened to a club, then we will have no objective reporting. Because a negative story is the end of your invites to the party. Membership has it’s privileges and privileges can be revoked.

    • Ani

      Exactly. Woodward and Bernstein lost their street cred because of this also. Access became more important that objectivity. Reporters should worry less about shmoozing with celebrities and high power politicians (often the same thing) and more about reporting on the truth about them.

      This is certainly one big indicator of why the press is such a disaster now.

  • I’m a Linda too

    And yes, this is the perfect example of why their papers have gone down and deserve to be no more.

    They are using their locale, their subscripton, as a carrot to be part of the who’s who.

    By making DEALs with their newstories, they can not honestly report the facts. By merely claiming to host a meal with them to be off the record, shows their compromise. And why else would a “high interest” person wish to dine at the newspaper?

    Really, this loser can make as many excuses as he wants, but he already compromised from his goal of copying the “Sperling Breakfasts”, by welcoming the A listers if he promises off the record. And how far does that “of the record” need be extended. Did you record the conversations and file it under “topics of no discussions”.

    oh please, really. Merely wanting to be a part of whome they were supposed to be reporting on.

    • I’m a Linda too

      excuse the typos.

  • http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Basic-Parenting-Styles&id=744499 Northwest rain

    A line has been crossed —

    At one time the press/media/journalists were supposed to be eye witnesses and report what they see and hear to the citizens. The job of the media was supposed to inform us and help us see places and people that would be impossible for individual.

    Ernie Pyle was an eye witness to the horrors of war (WWII) — he was an eye witness, sending stories back home of what he saw.

    But when the watchers become friends and best buddies with their subject — there is no room for objectivity. Especially when the very wealthy who now own the media have their own agenda which runs parallel with the other really rich guys who own the government.

    Tax payers — common ordinary voters — the unwashed masses — when are we all going to STFU and just mindlessly be entertained by the “news”?

    I don’t watch TV or cable news – I rarely look at any of the print media. These sources are tainted and biased in ways that most of us can’t even comprehend.

  • Doc99

    The country’s in the best of hands.

  • Peggy Sue

    What this piece clarifies is what we’ve all suspected: schmoozing has taken the place of journalism. And these people really think you can be objective [or a reasonable facsimile of objectivity] by socializing with the objects of their reporting?

    It’s called sleeping with the enemy.

    Remember GW saying he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul? That worked out real well for us!

    These media types need to come back down to earth. Otherwise they’re toast! And as far as I’m concerned at this point in time: good riddance.

    Thanks for the essay, AGI.

    • Peggy Sue

      Oops! Sorry for the credit mistake.

      Thanks Lisa B. for the essay [it's been a long day :0)].

  • Carlyinnj

    What objectivity??, even National Public Radio (NPR) and Public TV (in Philadelphia WHYY-TV) have bought the BS in total. We are fed pre-digested pseudo-news from the MSM.

    Thank you for this post; the information is very enlightening. The ideal of an unbiased, objective MSM is dead; the great reporters are mostly an extinct species.

    The present gang of clowns that work with the MSM wouldn’t know the TRUTH if it fell in their laps. It is certainly more FUN to attend “off the record” secret dinners and schmooze with the “A-List” politicians and so called world leaders. How could these journalists and media elite NOT SEE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST in attending these events

    “[So, they acknowledge the dinners may not produce “real frankness” but feel that at least it’s a more intimate way to get non-answers than a presser?]” So is the new GOAL of our journalist/media types to pursue INTIMACY with the person who is the focus of the story.

    This entire “secret dinner” arrangement is just bizarre; and these journalists/media elites are a bunch of egotistical fools. How dare they call what they do journalism; they are just a bunch of whores; doing the bidding of their powerful “secret” intimate dinner partners.

  • CG

    Thanks LisaB, for bringing this to the attention of NQ readers. I have enjoyed reading Howard Kurtz’ articles of late, maybe the only journalist out there critical of this obscenity, and he is regularly critical of the coverage of the Obamas, to which I find a bit of solace. If the Boy and Girl Scout motto is “Be Prepared” I would argue the motto for Americans should be “Be Skeptical,” especially skeptical of the media and the government (Congress and President).

  • Ani

    Feh, indeed. Spot on, LisaB. Thanks for this post. The list of media elites attending these dinners exlain a lot — if you look ath t list of names mentioned in Kurtz’s article you will see a common thread — namely, they usually bash the same people and soft pedal and/or downright worship the same people or person — coincidence? I think not.

  • http://noquarter foxyladi14

    no honest reporters any more,they are all bought and paid for.pity too

  • DaddysDarlin

    Dining with the devil, a table full of liars, now what good can come from that?
    Exactly what they wanted, no serious reporting, no investigative reporting, just filling us with the same shit they were served at dinner.
    That’s what I call reporting!
    Frauds each and everyone of them. There are no more investigative reporters, or we would know why Obama wont let us see his passport or his birth certificate. Why wont Obama allow anything from his past to be reported about?
    Obama fears investigative reporting, it would kill him politically, that’s why all the nice nice with the reporters.
    They bought into Obama hook, line and sinker.
    Thank God the American public saw through him, and now those who drank the kool aid are beginning to wake up.
    Obama wont make it through this four years, we will impeach him for all the fraud he has perpetrated upon the American people.
    He is a loser, a liar, a cheat and a fraud, and he will not be rewarded for his behavior toward the American people and our Constitution.
    WE WONT HAVE IT.

  • James

    This is the reason the press hated the Clintons. They rarely had these secret dinner parties for the Washington elite. That’s why they’re considered white trash by snobs like Sally Quinn and David Brooks.

  • Jackarooty

    Hey does anybody know if tomorrow is a Federal holiday considering it’s Barry’s 100 day in office and stuff?

    The media is treating it as such…

  • beachnan

    Thanks for the article Lisa B. These editors’ actions are wrong on so many levels, it is hard to reconcile what these people are doing to America. They are becoming equivalent to Pravda of the Soviet Union. There is no integrity amongst these editors.

  • Linda Anselmi

    Amazing. Just Amazing. A person doesn’t even know where to start.

    Excellent post LisaB!! Well done!!

  • Pingback: Topics about Vegetarians | Secret Media Dinners are really to Serve the Public even Better…

  • elizabethrc

    For years I viewed the papers and the press as the one safeguard we citizens had to protect us from the government and their secrets. I’m still trying to figure out if it is they who have changed, or is it that I have been utterly naive.
    Nowadays, the blogs have beaten the print media to a pulp, and rightly so. The NYT and their ilk are no match for the steamroller that has become the blogging community, and for that I am truly grateful. Where else are we to go to find the truth?

  • penguin

    Journalists have ruined their own profession. However they are too dumb to see it.