Parables

I learned in grammar school (which gives you an idea how long ago it was that I went - "grammar school?") that the idea of parables in Catholic religious teaching was to take complex questions and make them understandable to the common, possibly uneducated person. I suppose that now that characterization includes me, because it occurs to me that my fascination with two political novels -- for the longest time, just The Wanting of Levine, but lately Executive Orders, too -- is a way of summarizing and encapsulating some political attitudes and concepts -- its sort of Thinking Lite -- you get the benefit of deep thought without actually having to do it yourself.

What brought this to mind is an article I just came across on the Columbia Journalism Review website wherein they cite with approval the style of the British news media in asking questions regarding the conduct of the United States, particularly in Iraq. Referring to their style of reporting, they say that "(BBC World CEO) Sambrook is convinced there’s an audience in the U.S. hungry for high-quality, sophisticated global news coverage–the very brand of journalism, it so happens, they think they provide." They further say that readers are looking for a "fresh, non-US-centric take on world events".

I think thats true -- I read the Economist because I find the US competition to be too glossy and selective. But the idea that reporters have free rein to challenge the actions of a country, rather than simply report on them -- I find that I'm a little queasy about that. Which is what brings Executive Orders to mind. One of the minor subplots involves a reporter who skews an interview with the new President because he believes that the man is at best a liar and at worst a demagogue. He gets his comeuppance from a colleague, who asks why the press gets a free pass to do and say pretty much anything that they want, in support of whatever goal they desire, and regardless of whomever gets hurt in the process. The other fellow protests that thats the way the game is played, but his conscience is pricked at the idea that the assumption of everyone's culpability, somehow, may not be true. Upon learning that the President is in fact an honest man, the reporter comes clean on national television regarding his actions.

Reading the CJR article, I wondered: why does the press get this free pass? And the only thing I could think of, which I admit is weak, is: If not them, then who? Who can we trust to be both vigilant and honest, these days? Politicians?