Behind the Scenes

Tom Brokaw leading in to a question to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, started by talking about how he knows that Hank and his wife are ardent conservationists: "I've been on bird-watching expeditions with them that are also marathons; it's a death-march from 4AM to midnight."

Now, obviously, there's be no way to enforce a rule like "important media people aren't allowed to be bird-watching buddies with high government officials" but it is striking that you tend not to hear about this sort of coziness between the media and political elites when said media elites are busy posturing as a vast brigade of Woodward and Bernsteins eagerly digging to the truth. Meanwhile, Paulson, representing an administration that's worked tirelessly to block action on climate change at a climate change event, just sat around and said a bunch of misleading stuff designed to make you think that the Bush administration has been contributing constructively to this matter. Brokaw, who's probably not an idiot, doesn't want to give his friend the bird watcher a hard time, and just smiles before moving on.

Comments

This sort of thing really is an absolute outrage. It's bad enough that media figures indulge in such coziness with each other; that they chum around so much with the politicians they're meant to be scrutinizing - and that we've more or less come to accept this as standard Beltway operating procedure - is unconscionable.

Posted by Christmas | September 27, 2007 9:43 AM

Uh, Paulson has only been a "high government official" for a year or so. Don't you think it likely that these "marathon" bird-watching expeditions occurred before Paulson became Secretary of the Treasury?

Meanwhile, I presume that Matthew - himself a "media elite" - has no friends at all in governmental positions? Right, Matthew? And if one of your friends ever did become a governmental official in the Barack/Hillary administration, you would dump them as a friend until they left government, because you wouldn't want to compromise your "media" standing. Right?

Posted by Al | September 27, 2007 9:56 AM

Yes, Al, as I wrote "obviously, there's be no way to enforce a rule like "important media people aren't allowed to be bird-watching buddies with high government officials."

If there's a Clinton or Obama or Edwards administration, the odds favor me knowing some of the people working their personally, and I imagine blog readers will hear about that from me.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 27, 2007 10:11 AM

On the other hand, while Brokaw has a powerful megaphone, there are plenty of other prominent news personalities who presumably are not buddy-buddy with Paulson and could tell it like it is, thus forcing Brokaw to concur or else defend Paulson on the merits.

Having certain journalists get close to major figures has upsides as well, as we could be given a more in-depth picture of what their character is like, their decision-making processes, etc.

Posted by right | September 27, 2007 10:18 AM

Maybe I misinterpretted the post, Matthew, but saying "there's be no way to enforce a rule" seems to me to be saying "I wish there was such a rule, but unfortunately there's no practical way to make it happen." I mean, the post seemed to be saying that coziness between media and poltical elites is a bad thing, no? And yet you are saying in your reponse to me that your coziness with people in the forthcoming Barack/Hillary (let's put aside the crazy idea that Edwards will ever be President) administration will be good just fine.

And, yeah, if your friends take positions in the Barack/Hillary administration, you're right that we blog readers would want to hear about it. Just as we want to hear Paulson interviewed by Brokaw. I have no problem with media elite - political elite coziness, whether that is birdwatching friendships between Brokaw and Paulson or Yglesias-whoever friendships. There is enough media competition out there such that there are plenty of non-cozy reporters (or bloggers) who are willing to break a big story.

Posted by Al | September 27, 2007 10:28 AM

"Hank" Paulson was a Pentagon staffer and Nixon White House staffer (!) before he went to Goldman Sachs. And considering that GS seems to have a habit of getting its high muckamucks into big time government positions, the statement that Paulson has only been in a high government position for a brief period is misleading at best. Beyond that, trying to draw comparisons between MY and any friends he has in gov't, and the relationship between a long term nationally broadcasted news anchor and a Serious Financial Power who now controls the money supply of the American government, well...good lord. I shouldn't even have to explain how creepy the possible conflicts of interest are there.
I'll try anyway: if MY goes out for a beer with me (presuming he has reason to be in NYC), we can talk about pretty much anything, and if I mention my job (I'm a long term INS/CIS bureaucrat), he might be interested in what I'm talking about, and might even learn something, but it's not like I have any political power in my agency, and I certainly don't have any financial ability to affect legislation (i.e., monster campaign contributions).
If, on the other hand, MY meets me in a bar in Washington D.C., and instead of being John Q Bureaucrat, I am, say, Emilio Gonzalez (current CIS Director), there should be an automatic undercurrent of, if not hostility, then at least standoffishness. Gonzalez cannot (or should not) think he can say ANYTHING without the possibility that MY will consider it on the record. That means no shooting the bull about the job, no cracking wise about co-workers, and absolutely no letting his guard down about anything resembling dissatisfaction with his agency's policies. If he does, he should expect whatever gaffes he makes to be posted later than night in Matt's blog. And if Matt doesn't post such gaffes, then he will be thought no better than the Joe Kleins and Fox News hacks of the world, sitting up on his hind legs on command to get a treat whenever a politician feels like having him do tricks.

Posted by jonathan | September 27, 2007 10:34 AM

Hi Sluggy Al; are you being your typical moron self or worse, worse than worse? I notice your name and spit and move on, Sluggy Al. Slug and slime on, Sluggy Al.

Posted by Jennifer | September 27, 2007 10:49 AM

the question i was going to pose is why matthew is convinced brokaw isn't an idiot, but then Al took us down this other path.

Yes, i for one would like to see personal social contacts limited between journalists and public officials, and the best way to limit them would be for the employers of said journalists to force them to disclose and then make appropriate determinations in the interests of journalistic integrity (insofar as this is a quality which still matters, which, admittedly, isn't very far).

for example, if brokaw told nbc that he regularly bird-watches (or bird-watched) with paulson, then brokaw should not be interviewing paulson on matters of policy.

Posted by howard | September 27, 2007 11:15 AM

Hi Sluggy Al; are you being your typical moron self or worse, worse than worse? I notice your name and spit and move on, Sluggy Al. Slug and slime on, Sluggy Al.

Jennifer, I'm no fan of Al's, but I'm going to light a candle to St. Fu in your name.

Posted by James Gary | September 27, 2007 11:17 AM

I guess I'm just not a huge fan of the media fascination with objectivity, Howard. I think the media's all got their own biases, whether they stem from birdwatching together, or attending the same cocktail parties in DC, or whatever (and, of course, the biases could be negative or positive). And those biases don't have to stem from personal relationships, of course. But we focus on disclosure of personal relationships for some reason. I mean, you sometimes see in an article "full disclosure - I have X relationship with the subject of the article", but you never see in an article something like "full disclosure - my college professors taught me that the theory this person is espousing is wrong", even though the latter can induce a bias just as much as the former.

I just try to look at what is said in the interview (or article, or report, or whatever) and not worry about the biases of the reporter.

Posted by Al | September 27, 2007 11:36 AM

There is enough media competition out there such that there are plenty of non-cozy reporters (or bloggers) who are willing to break a big story.

The concern isn't big stories so much as charitable interpretations of arguably ambiguous actions. And they're mostly at least a bit ambiguous. And I don't know competition solves all problems. My recollection is that the cost of acquiring readers is relatively high, and that--given time pressures--most people stick with what they know. Perhaps as news gathering on the web, analysis on the web, and aggregators like blogs become more popular, this becomes less true.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2007 11:36 AM

Jonathan gets to the core of the issue. But there is a lot more. High-profile journalists are valued for their ability to develop inside connections. To get those inside connections they have to build relationships of trust with the people they're talking to. But that means, as Jonathan says, that they have to show a willingness not to spill the beans. But this compromises their ability to provide quality journalism. Now, not only do they not spill the beans on the secret stuff they're privy to, but they're afraid to criticize these guys on matters that are public information for fear of damaging those insider connections. In my opinion, Brokaw's insider connection in DC discredit him as a journalist- if he's willing to do what it takes to develop those connections, he must not be a very good journalist. Paulson would not be going bird-watching with him if he were willing to give us the cutting edge truth. The problem is, this doesn't just discredit Brokaw when he's interviewing Paulson. This discredits him when he's talking about any issue that materially impacts important people in Washington- how do we know who's good side he's trying to get on? How do we know who he's trying to impress that he knows how to play the game like a good old boy?

At the end of the day, we don't need any rules preventing journalists from developing close relationship with power brokers in Washington. And in fact, it is probably helpful to have some people playing that game, developing those connections, creating a trusted conduit to the public with those figures. But the people developing those connections should not be regarded as our most trusted journalists, like Brokaw. That is the real problem- the downside of those connections is not being taken into account.

Posted by mpowell | September 27, 2007 12:28 PM

Shorter Al: everyone has biases, so let's all throw our hands up.

The number one problem with the media in this country is precisely the Ivy League, country club, cocktail party, "these are good people that I go bird watching with" chumminess of the press with the powerful elites. Most "journalists" are now just the hangers-on at Jay Gatsby's parties. Their number one goal is to join the elite that they supposedly submit to scrutiny. Whether they are breakdancing with Karl Rove or roasting pigs with the rich and famous "Friends of Bill," they are equally worthless. This isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue -- it's a 'do your fucking job' issue.

Posted by jim | September 27, 2007 12:59 PM

How old are you Matt? When are you planning on retiring as a media analyst and getting into a different career? Because this is an inevitable step of High Broderization.

You come in as a rabble rouser, you make friends and acquaintances amongst up and coming lawyers and other pols, and 10-20 years later, they are in charge, and Washington is YOUR town, not to be besmirched by the new money.

So what does your career path look like?

(This happens in many job fields. It is why many job fields should not allow most of its participants to continue past five years in the job.)

Posted by jerry | September 27, 2007 1:01 PM

al, let's not get this discussion all confused with "objectivity." if tim russert - as he told us - regards phone calls from the high and mighty as inherently off the record, that's a serious problem.

if tom brokaw pulls punches because he birds in the wee small hours of the morning with his interviewee, that's a problem.

if, as margaret carlson more or less told us, you can get national political reporters to be on your side by serving high-end food on the press plane, that's a problem.

none of this has anything to do with "objectivity;" it has to do with reliability and integrity.

right now, as others have noted, the incentives favor maintaining the relationship over hard-hitting journalism. more sunshine on those relationships would inherently lead to harder-edged journalism, regardless of its ideological predispositions....

PS. to put it in basketball terms, it's not a good thing that there are superstar calls and rookie calls just because the refs know, work within, and contribute to the nba status hierarchy system....

Posted by howard | September 27, 2007 1:11 PM

I'm sick of the chuminess too; it reflects what Digby refers to as The Village: the Washington elite of politicians, government workers and the media, who all support each other. I'd like to point out another aspect of this, though: you'd think an avid bird watcher would be very concerned with global warming, which presumably could lead to the extinction of a lot of bird species. Either Paulsen doesn't care about what happens to birds after he dies, or his careerism trumps his interest in wildlife. Not a pretty picture either way.

Posted by beckya57 | September 27, 2007 2:07 PM

Hi Sluggy Al; are you being your typical moron self or worse, worse than worse? I notice your name and spit and move on, Sluggy Al. Slug and slime on, Sluggy Al.

Jennifer -- this thread is for adults. If you're going to have a temper tantrum, please do it in the privacy of your own home.

Posted by George | September 27, 2007 2:52 PM

In 12 - 14 months, Ezra or Megan or Ross or Sara or Neil or Julian or Kriston is going to accept a job in the new administration. They'll be pretty low level at first, but by year two and year four, and in the second term, they will be getting some real responsibility -- and you'll be the consummate insider.

How are you planning to deal with that?

Do you have any skills you can fall back on since you will be exiting punditry? How many words per minute do you type?

My guess is you're just a junior broder wanker in progress. And you will become what you fear or hate.

Posted by jerry | September 27, 2007 2:59 PM

A friend who owns a box at RFK baseball stadium tells me Tim Russert and James Carville attend games together.

Posted by James | September 27, 2007 4:25 PM