Glenzilla writes in White House access is a jackpot for reporters:
The conflicts in having “journalists” report on the administration while simultaneously begging top White House officials for highly lucrative book-access are as self-evident as they are corrupting.
Is it even remotely conceivable that this stable of access-desperate reporters would write negatively about the White House or the President, or conversely, refuse to do their bidding?
How can one possibly purport to be a “watchdog” over the very political officials on whom one’s livelihood and hope for riches depend?
I’m in agreement with Glenn about the affect of “access” on objective reporting. But the same principle applies to blogging.
The Chicago Cubs will win a dozen World Series before I ever get invited to a White House briefing. Outside of the other frontpagers at The Confluence my email contacts include exactly three bloggers, and one of those has a blog that is now defunct. I also get no income from blogging.
But if I depended on blogging for my livelihood, whether by salary, advertising or from subscriptions/donations, having insider access at the White House would be like money in the bank. Would it corrupt me?
Oh, you betcha! It would corrupt anyone. To paraphrase Lord Acton, “Access corrupts, and complete access corrupts completely.” Which makes me wonder: How it would affect someone who is already swilling Kool-aid?
For me, ‘progressive’ means ‘committed to progress’ which may be incremental or sweeping, but which doesn’t get bogged down in ideological roadblocks. There is no such thing as ‘noble failure’ when failure means that the current incarnation of Republicans is restored to power. A wise president works with what he’s got and doesn’t add more burden than the beast can bear. That’s different from triangulation. Triangulation is passing your opponent’s agenda on your terms and then taking credit for it. Obama is passing his agenda on the terms the system will bear. And that is progressive enough for me.
Filed under: General