Letter supporting Democracy Now from Bob McChesney

October 17, 2004

To Whom it May Concern:

I am a historian and scholar of journalism and media systems. I have written or edited eleven books, and have had my work translated into 14 languages. I have taught journalism students for the past 16 years at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and now at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I am also a practicing journalist. I published a monthly magazine in Seattle in the 1980s and currently host a weekly hour-long program on journalism and media issues on WILL-AM, the NPR affiliate in eastern Illinois. The show is titled “Media Matters with Bob McChesney.” It will be syndicated nationally in 2005.

With all of this experience in practicing and studying journalism, I have been concerned by the way in which Democracy Now has been characterized as “advocacy journalism” or in some manner less professional than the journalism produced by NPR or much of the commercial news media. The implication or insinuation is the Democracy Now! is more interested in pushing a political agenda than mainstream – it is partisan – and therefore must not be regarded in the same light as NPR or most mainstream commercial news.

The perception is understandable, but it is dead wrong. Please let me explain.

Much of what is considered professional journalism in the United States is rigorously committed to being neutral politically, and providing a forum for those in power to debate each other on the issues of the day. If those in power, leading Republicans and Democrats, are debating an issue – say, for example, abortion rights – then journalism can appear combative as it reports the views of the contrasting sides. But if those in power do not disagree on an issue, or elect not to debate it, then contemporary professional journalism is severely hamstrung. It provides no opposition to the official story; if journalists elect to challenge what those in power agree upon they are accused of being “ideological” and pushing their own agenda. It is a terrible thing for a professional journalist to be accused of. It is, for example, one of the main reasons the press coverage of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq was so deplorable and unsatisfactory.

This version of professional journalism was not “natural.” In fact, it was the result of a decades long process in the first half of the twentieth century when journalists, editors and publishers grappled with how to establish a credible journalism that did not appear to simply promote the political views of the owners, as had been the practice in the first 125 years of the Republic. It was one thing to have partisan journalists when newspaper markets were highly competitive and a wide range of views would be present, but quite another thing to have stridently partisan journalism in the increasing number of one and two newspaper towns by the 20th century. The struggle for professional journalism was born.

It reached a head in the 1930s. Leading U.S. journalists like Heywood Broun and George Seldes argued that democracy required a truly independent journalism that did not simply reflect what official sources said and provide a forum for their debates. They did not want a partisan journalism but rather a journalism that saw itself as representing the broad interests of the people in constant pursuit of the truth. All people in power, all official sources, were to be regarded with skepticism. The vision of Broun and Seldes – and embodied in the journalists union they formed, The Newspaper Guild – was for a journalism rigorously committed to research and investigation and enlightenment, not to pontification.

Press owners were not enthralled with this type of journalism, nor were some journalists. It put the newspaper in constant hot water with the powers-that-be and that was not good for business. Also the owners themselves were part of the power structure and not especially interested in such a rigorous application of journalism. By the 1940s the more modest version of professional journalism was ascendant.

But the other version remained alive on the margins. Its greatest practitioner in the postwar years was I.F. Stone, the legendary reporter and editor of I.F. Stone’s Weekly, who broke scores of major stories that professional journalists never touched. Stone could never do his work with a conventional newspaper; it was considered far too controversial. But Stone never carried water for any political party of the movement; he was simply unsparing in his critical reporting on those in power. By the end of Stone’s life, and certainly today, Stone is considered one of the greatest journalists in U.S. history and arguably the greatest journalist of the second half of the twentieth century.

What Broun and Seldes promoted, what I.F. Stone did, is exactly what Democracy Now does. It is not partisan journalism. In fact, Democrats get the same treatment as Republicans. Ask Bill Clinton. I have no doubt that if Ralph Nader or John Kerry were in power, Democracy Now would subject them to the same critical analysis as it does George W. Bush. It is not unsubstantiated pontificating. It is very hard research on very serious issues concerning affairs of the state. It is roundly taught in journalism schools as precisely what journalism must do if we are to have a bona fide self-governing political system. As the great journalist Richard Reeves put it, real journalism is stuff we need to know to keep our freedom. That is Democracy Now in a nutshell.

If one understands Democracy Now in this tradition, we can see why it is also so controversial. People in power don’t tend to like it. But since when is that the yardstick of journalism, unless the country in question is a banana republic? If the reports it produces are filled with errors and misrepresentations, that is one thing. But no one makes that claim about Democracy Now. Its standards for factual accuracy equal or triumph mainstream news.

In this light, the occasional effort to characterize Democracy Now as the liberal version of right-wing talk radio or Fox News Channel is nonsensical. Right-wing talk show hosts do not do journalism. They simply bloviate opinions, and, invariably, conservative Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right. The programs are shameless. The better comparison for right-wing talk radio might be Air America. It is admittedly devoted to Democrats. But at the same time, as one who has listened to Air America, it has a much stronger commitment to factual accuracy and intellectual consistency. It is not shameless.

In short, Democracy Now is an extraordinary and necessary addition to the media diet of Americans. It is a superb complement to other news sources, such as NPR. The Democracy Now audience has mushroomed over the past two years because people who treasure Democracy Now and who treasure public life respond well to what it has to offer.

Please contact me if you wish to discuss the matter further.

Sincerely,

Robert W. McChesney
Research Professor
217-344-1545
rwmcces@uiuc.edu