Even if the hair wasn't a dead giveaway, it's clear that Ted Koppel is an old school journalist with a capital J. Last week he appeared on CNN's "Reliable Sources," hosted by Howard Kurtz, and although I didn't catch the broadcast, Dorothy Rabinowitz has a thorough write-up in today's Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Kurtz then raised the issue of the [Hurricane] Katrina coverage, and the fact that it ushered in "a more emotional style of journalism" because correspondents on the scene had become frustrated at the government's failure.
Kurtz: "Is that a good thing?"
Koppel: "Why no, it's not a good thing."
...But reporters should have feelings, shouldn't they, Mr. Kurtz pursued. "And they shouldn't let those show, in your view?"
Koppel: "Correct."
"What's the problem?" Mr. Kurtz wanted to know.
Koppel: "Because that's not your job and that's not my job."
Rabinowitz writes approvingly of Koppel's tart candor, an implied rebuke to the Katrina correspondents who wore their hearts on their sleeves: Anderson Cooper, Shepard Smith, Chris Lawrence, et al.
I understand Koppel's (and Rabinowitz's) concern: Appeals to emotion in journalism potentially start us down a slippery slope at the bottom of which we'll find ourselves subject to the worst sort of utterly phony hucksterism, the likes of which would appall even William Hurt's duplicitous journalist in "Broadcast News."
But they fail to recognize that it's two-way street, and there's more than one kind of phony hucksterism. The stone-faced ignorance of reality that passes for "objectivity" in a disturbingly large number of broadcast pieces and newspaper articles is bullshit of the highest order, and we all know it.
And our discontent with these ludicrous stories is one of the most powerful forces behind the success of blogs and other sources of adamantly subjective citizen journalism. What Koppel, Rabinowitz and their old school colleages don't get is that subjectivity and emotion don't necessarily undermine authenticity and truth. They certainly can have that effect, and there are millions of subjective, emotional, and utterly bogus blogs to prove it. But they're not mutually incompatible qualities--and when done right, subjectivity and emotion can drive home the authenticity and truth of a story in a way that old-school reporting never will.
The old-schoolers wrap themselves in their code of objectivity and ask us to believe that their exalted status as "journalists" gives their every utterance the force of scripture, when the mountains of half-truths that come pouring out of their mouths and word processors betray them at every turn.
That's just not really working for us anymore. And the alternative is not, as the old-schoolers would have us believe, hypocrites on the airwaves and/or raving loons typing away in their pajamas. The alternative is authentic, individual voices telling us what they believe to be true. And the relentlessly subjective intellectual marketplace that is the Internet will fact-check their asses within an inch of their lives.
"Ugh, the Internet," the old-schoolers moan. Yes, knuckledraggers on the periphery are constantly spouting idiocies, but the critical mass at the center is eternally vigilant, outing the bullshitters and shooting down the crackpots. That's why Wikipedia works. Anyone mouth-breather can pollute an entry with his special brand of hatred, but it will be found out and corrected within minutes. That's the intellectual marketplace at work. No anointed gatekeepers, no codes of objectivity. The Wisdom of Crowds, to coin a phrase.
When will they get it? Probably never--it's just too late. Goodbye, Ted. It's been fun.