Feeling Stupid? Go With That Feeling

There's an interesting article at Salon.com by Glenn Greenwald that focuses a bit on the Jon Steward/Jim Cramer kerfuffle that makes for good reading for anyone concerned with how we get our news these days.

Reporter Cramer basically uses the "I was lied to" defense in answering why he continued to tout companies and investments that later imploded during the opening moments of our current financial crisis in 2008. Now, as a reporter, I've fallen back on that defense myself -- and it seems completely justified, until you hear comedian Jon Stewart's response:

But what is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? I'm under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out.

Ouch. Yeah, Stewart was basically asking Cramer why he wasn't doing his job as a journalist. The old newsroom saw goes "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." In other words, you can't take what your sources say at face value because, more often than not, they've forgotton something, they've unmaliciously exaggerated, they're flat out wrong or, in ways that range from innocent to devious, they've lied to you. I fell into that trap several times as a newspaper reporter, and it always stung. What stung more is that there were ample opportunities to discover that what I was being told was not the truth, but I did not take those opportunities because, well, I was lazy.

Greenwald comes down pretty hard on the established media for this mindset -- and does so justifiably:

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.

Today, everyone -- including media stars everywhere -- is going to take Stewart's side and all join in the easy mockery of Cramer and CNBC, as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.

I'm not sure there are any reporters who are immune to taking this defense, and who are sheepishly proud of their efforts once they make the effort, rather than go through the motions. There are many out there who do exactly what Stewart advises Cramer to do, and the industry is duly proud of them. But more often than not, going through the motions is what meets the deadlines and is what makes the job the easiest. I'm working as hard as I can to recognize that kind of behavior in the tasks I take on now, in a different field of communications. Part of that recognition includes finding ways to erradicate that behavior. Taking that kind of defense doesnt' make you look like a victim of circumstance, it makes you look stupid. And as my brother says when I mention I'm feeling stupid: "Go with that feeling."

But it's interesting to hear a comedian like Stewart say it. Nobody, as Greenwald says, will pay attention to the advice, beyond snickering that it was Cramer who got fed that crow sandwich on national television. I'd like to think that Cramer learns a lesson from this encounter, and that others in the business take heed of it as well. I know I'll look at ways to do it in my own job as well.