“We still don’t know the first thing about terrorists.” That was the title of last week’s column in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper now available in English and Hebrew on the Internet, by American-born (Los Angeles) and educated (UC Berkeley) Bradley Burston. I have not read or heard an American journalist or TV host make a similar comment, but I wish I had.
Ten minutes into “Hardball” on Monday, April 22, Clint van Zandt, former director of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (and alumnus of Gateway Journalism Review’s home, Southern Illinois University) told host Chris Matthews: “The pieces we don’t have, Chris, are where was their (the two alleged bombers’) inspiration?” That’s when Matthews issued his now deservedly jeered praise of ignorance: “Why is that important? I mean, what difference does it make why they did it if they did it? … I’m being tough here.” Wrong word, Chris. You were being deliberately dense and disingenuous. It matters, as van Zandt pointed out, in giving law enforcement agencies insight to detect similar “inspiration” and prevent it from turning alienated young people into assassins. Such knowledge matters also as liberal education does by granting us a better “understanding of the human condition,” and truly lets journalism become the first draft of history.
Coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing once again revealed the great strength and enduring weakness of TV’s news channels. As during past events, from people’s demonstrations to natural disasters, the cameras were there for us, witnessing and recording. We watched, even when irritated by relentless repetition of the same incident, and the images etched themselves into our minds.
The reports from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism remain relentlessly glum. There is no need to “do the numbers” one more depressing time. They’re still going down, with an increase in digital subscriptions for some newspapers the exceptional bright spot. The latest report, “The State of the News Media 2013,” lists the usual suspects for the continuing decline: fewer people enjoy following the news; half of all Americans get their news digitally; only 23 percent of Americans read a newspaper daily; only 34 percent of Americans under 30 watch TV news. Same old, same old. But there is one sentence in the report that ought to make practicing and prospective journalists sit up and pay attention: “Nearly a third of U.S. adults, 31 percent, have stopped turning to a news outlet because it no longer provided the news they were accustomed to getting.” Yow! The news junkies are abandoning the news. These are the people who are hoping for information and insight to help them understand local, national and international events. They’re telling us that they’re not getting that understanding any longer. So what’s going on here?
During the past three weeks the New York Times published five remarkable articles about America’s economic divide. Together they paint a devastating picture of a country moving inexorably toward a two-tier society in which the rich will continue to get richer while middle-class and-blue-collar workers cling to a life of stagnant wages and high unemployment. Reader response was heavy, on the whole indicting the government in Washington from the 1990s until now as “profit before people administrations.” But no response seems to be coming from the corridors of power in politics, finance and business.