My friend Keith Thomas sent me an interesting link in which Gwen Ifill, the moderator of Washington Week in Review defends the show against an attack in The Washington Post by New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen. In a feature called “Twelve Things the World Should Toss Out,” in which an eclectic group of semi-prominent to prominent folks nominate candidates for “spring cleaning,” Rosen suggested tossing out Washington Week in Review. the PBS show in which a bunch of Washington-based reporters sit around and chitchat about the events of the week. After allowing that the reporters and moderator Gwen Ifill were professionals, Rosen attacked the show, which as been on the air for 43 years, from top to bottom. The premise was “exhausted,” he argued. The reporters are too close to the politicians they cover. The audience is a bunch of insider “wanna-be’s.” The show, Rosen wrote, has “no grace, edge, mystery or dissonant voice,” and is often “a lie.” Whoa, that is kind of harsh, I think.
After giving what seems to me is the usual boilerplate about “there is plenty of things wrong with journalism,” and she will “defend anybody’s right” to express opinions with which she disagrees, Ifill suggests that there areplenty of people who prefer shows that are trying to bring more light than heat to the discussion of politics. (I would say, well maybe not plenty but there are some)
A couple of points. First, over the years Rosen has been one of the more thoughtful and most entrepreneurial academic advocates of journalism reform. So of all the targets in journalism to pick to “toss out,” for him to pick out Washington Week seems to me to be a really bizarre one. So what if it has no mystery, no dissonant voices and no edge (I am not sure what “no grace” means). Is it misleading; is the information wrong or bad? Is the show harmful in some way?
Second, maybe some people like to sit around the table (in a virtual sense, of course) and have a nice discussion about politics with people who may know something. I am not sure where the line is between wanting to know more (“inside information”) about politics (I thought that would be a good thing) and being an “insider wanna-be” which I assume is a bad things worthy of scorn and ridicule. And if there is a big enough audience that want the information the guests on the show offer for PBS to want to continue to serve it, well, why should the show be tossed out?
For myself, I have sworn off watching all of the so-called commentary shows unless at some point, some time, one of the guests representing one of the sides (I don’t care, liberal or conservative, it makes no difference), listens to a point made by the representative of the other side and says “you know, that is really interesting, I am going to have to think about it.”
And one last thought. Fifty years ago, Walter Cronkite was not seen as the most trusted man in America because he was edgy, mysterious or, in some way, a dissonant voice.
Jay Rosen of New York University
Gwen Ifill of Washington Week in Review
Good post, Elliot. I happen to be semi-regular watcher of “Washington Week” who finds Rosen’s target to be an odd choice (and I’m also a fan of his). For one thing, in many markets “Week” immediately precedes “The McLaughlin Group,” which offers plenty of “edge” but less enlightenment.
Also related to the talk show idea and coming from that same list of “12 things” is something I’ve long argued for, the idea that Donna Brazille expresses–fewer talking-head pundits from the world of journalism and “more people with genuine expertise.” Who knows, at times that might even include media historians.