One of the most useful tools for understanding our contemporary class of political journalists was offered years ago in a book too often dismissed, Voltaire's Bastards by Canadian author John Ralston Saul. By highlighting the role of courtiers in the court of King Louis XVI, Saul offered an historical analogy that opened up possibilities for understanding that might otherwise go unnoticed. Originally designed as a way to buffer the throne from sycophants, the intricate structure of servants and others around the king existed in order to force competition and concern among them, keeping their minds occupied with who was in, out, up, down rather than with the influence they might or might not have upon royal decision-making. The system was set up by a wise king, Louis XIV, but by the time the next-to-last royal, the murdered XVI of the same name came along, the system was self-perpetuating, easily manipulable by the very persons it was designed to manipulate.
While no historical analogy is perfect, this one does benefit from the opportunity to examine the actions of those whose concern is access to the powerful, and interpreting the actions of the powerful. The increasing fascination with the game of politics - not so much the horse-race mentality as it applies to election coverage, but the insiderism of too much of our punditry - is indicative not only of a dumbing down of our political discourse, but of the return of the courtier. By highlighting his or her access to various insiders and reporting on behind-the-scenes machinations with various levels of detail, these journalists feel they are a part of the game.
My own complaint about contemporary journalism is not one of ideology. It is, rather, a combination of a frustration with a certain type of elitism and the actions that smack of courtierism. Rather than professionals dedicated to doing a certain task, too many journalists combine a disdain for the intellectual capacity of their readers with an obsession for their own place in the political pecking order. They eschew serious policy discussions out of disdain, and stress the power-struggle out of their own sense of being players. The results, of course, are the abysmal daily pieces we read with tears in our eyes.
We would do ourselves a great favor if we discarded arguments from ideology in our criticism of the press. We should not borrow from the right some of the worse traits of "working the refs" (to borrow Eric Alterman's solicitous phrase). Rather, we should concentrate on new ways of thinking about the failures of the press, and what we can do, and should do, and are doing, to counter them. Part of that process is understanding that our political reporters are as enraptured of the powerful as anyone would be; it is our job to disabuse them of that trait, and demand better.
Virtual Tin Cup
