One Good Point -- And a Lot of Leaky Reasoning

The Legacies of a Leak Case piece by Jim Hoagland, the usually savvy columnist for the Washington Post, is remarkably wrong-headed, but it does make one very interesting point:

Journalism traditionally is a collective enterprise, with its output shaped by the interaction of reporters, editors, publishers, anchors and others. But as blockbuster book contracts, mega-marketing campaigns and television's gigantic ad revenue gain a dominant role in the business, journalism has become much more entrepreneurial. It has also become more star-struck in what it covers and how it covers it.

… her failure to accept supervision from or to share vital information with her editors strike at the system of checks and balances that credible journalism requires.

Echoes of Hoagland's observation about the "entrepreneurialization" of journalism also can be identified in similar developments in other important public arenas. My sense is that the sharp rise in emphasis on, attention to, and idealization of various types of "entrepreneurship" in the U.S. deserves much closer examination -- especially in the way in which it has struck "at the system of checks and balances" upon which we had been relying.

And, for the record, here's my beef with the bulk of Hoagland's piece, which loses its bearings when he writes:

This scandal's greatest importance lies, Weimar-like, in its ability to distract the public's attention, energy and commitment from more important questions.

And Hoagland, who is a smart guy, should be embarrassed by the sleazy slight-of-hand he attempts when he tries to use the phrase "In this regard" as a bridge to the claim that

"In this regard, Fitzgerald's investigation also resembles in spirit and effect the efforts to impeach Bill Clinton over his affair with a former intern."

My view is the exact opposite of the point that Hoagland is trying to make: Fitzgerald and his investigation are not distracting "the public's attention, energy and commitment from more important questions."

Quite the contrary; Fitzgerald's investigation is a step -- albeit just a single step, with a lot of other work that will need to follow -- in a what is likely to be a long process of reining in the corrosive and legality-skirting tactics that have been "refined" by Rove, Delay, Attwater and their ilk. For years and years, it is their tactics (not Fitzgerald's investigation) that have been a major factor in distracting "the public's attention, energy and commitment from more important questions."

Of course, the Dems have done nasty and unforgiveable things, but it is the Republican operatives who have really embraced this approach and taken it to unprecendented (and dangerous) depths.

From where I sit, it is mind-boggling to see Hoagland try to compare the investigation being conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald -- a serious, sober, highly-regarded, widely respected, non-partisan (if anything, Republican!) District Attorney -- with the ludicrous Whitewater vendetta run by Ken Starr and his gang.

Give me a break.