The Very Own Pride of the U.S. Press

An unflattering nickname — the world’s “second oldest profession” (after prostitution) — has stuck to journalism in Russia.

By the way, this nickname has stuck to journalism following an example of the American newsman Robert Silvestri, who depicted the U.S. editorial dispositions during the Great Depression in his novel, titled “The World’s Second Oldest Profession.”

Nevertheless, this biting definition never found day-to-day existence in America. Nowadays, they use this phrase of “being the second oldest” to refer to the professions of either spies or politicians. The press is now respectfully called “the fourth branch of government” — after the legislative, judicial and executive powers, respectively.

Of course, it is a stock propaganda phrase that has a larger degree of flattering exaggeration. But in constant use, such stock phrases grow into dogmas, overriding even those who had created them. In the U.S., not only reporters believe in “a special vocation” of their profession but, to a great extent, the government and society do too.

Besides, today many Americans choose this profession because it is considered nearly “moribund.” Starting salaries in the industry have always been low, and now it’s undergoing a period of mass dismissals. There are not many individuals who are certain to become “stars.” Even those in the Internet era find it hard to stand out among the background of mass gatherings of smaller “stars.” Despite that, journalism still retains general and social prestige.

According to the existing canon, the main purpose of the press in a democratic country is to guarantee control over the government and serve as a feedback mechanism between “the working classes” and “the ruling classes.” This is, in general, true. In America, this goal is achieved and reporters have a full right to be proud of it.

But critics have recently observed that the “embodied into the governmental system” local media has a more fundamental function: To maintain the existing order of things and to prove that the American lifestyle and their own way are not only the most effective and successful, but the most ethical and just.

On the whole, this very function is concealed and its real name, which is propaganda, is rarely used in the U.S. But in practice, it certainly exists and referred to as “public diplomacy” for the public ear and, as “patriotic consensus” or other euphemisms for the interior use.

Among other things, other branches of government are also actively engaged in keeping the professional reputation of the press. Officials are aware that infringement on the freedom of press would be political suicide. That’s why they are among the first to fight for the freedom of pres,s even in such cases like the recent scandal with the leakage of diplomatic papers through the WikiLeaks channels. Earlier, the U.S. had already had more serious exposures, including the Watergate scandal and publication of Pentagon’s plans for the war in Vietnam. Add to that a scabrous story with Monica Lewinsky.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution directly prohibits the U.S. Congress to pass any law that “infringes the freedom of speech or the press.” The Americans are extremely proud of this constitutional norm and tend to interpret it broadly. The latter applies to the U.S. courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. There has never been a federal law to protect the rights of reporters in America, though.

There is no doubt that no constitutional guarantee means absolute freedom for the reporters. At the time of George W. Bush, authorities began to systematically challenge the so-called “reporters’ privilege,” the right of reporters to keep secret confidential sources of “leakage.” Dozens of cases were brought to court; the most famous case is of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent three months behind bars on a matter of principle.

It’s clear that in the light of the first amendment, the existence of open censorship in the U.S. is out of the question. There are not many, but unspoken taboos do exist. For instance, the legendary Helen Thomas, who had worked in the press pool of the White House since the time of the late Dwight Eisenhower, was persecuted and forced to retire following incautious anti-Israel comments that she had made. After the shocking terrorist acts in 2001, the reporters who had acknowledged personal courage of the suicide bombers were fired in a fit of temper. In fact, a very important subject of the U.S. “fabulous privilege” to control emission of factual world currency reserve is closed for serious discussion.

Not long ago, I personally faced a display of the intolerance of criticism, following a question that I asked during the briefing at the White House concerning the misuse of freedoms in the U.S. that regularly leads to bloody massacres like the tragedy in Arizona, where a mentally unstable American shot dozens of people down, including a member of the U.S. Congress. Interestingly, I was assailed for this “impudence” not by the officials of the White House press service, but by random American reporters.

Besides, in last year’s story with Helen Thomas, the authorities were not kingpins but “industry colleagues” and, to be more precise, the press-briefing-hall colleagues where she traditionally had a central chair in the first row. Later it was revealed that many in the press pool were exasperated with her persistent and assertive questions, such as why the U.S. sheds their own blood — and the blood of others — in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From my point of view from afar, she was honest and right in doing her professional duty while others, with their questions of “specific things,” preferred not see the forest behind the trees. It seems to me that “patriotic consensus” based on such “figures of concealment” is akin to open national egotism. It [the patriotic consensus] does not differ from a collective responsibility, per se.

While criticizing the U.S. press when it does give grounds for criticism, at the same time, I have a huge respect for it. On the whole, its professional “system of co-ordinates” I perceive as being absolutely right. It’s just the system that comprises both the rights and responsibilities of a reporter.

Observing of professional rules and norms, without any legal bans, practically excludes the possibility of “made to order” articles and reports published in respectable editions and broadcast in the U.S. Thanks to that, questions “prearranged” with press secretaries, i.e. false questions to officials, are hardly imaginable here.

Because of them the media does not accept “sobs” like free flights with the U.S. president around the country and abroad. The most principled ones reject invitations for informal, “off the record” contacts with the head of state at the White House.

In general, reporters in America have their own pride. They love their profession and are not going to betray it because of such a “small fry” as the lack of “business model” that could, if not ensure their steady success, at least provide a bearable existence during this Internet era.

One day, while discussing this issue, a local friend of mine, a respectable observer of economic issues, told me an anecdote: “A man worked in the circus. His duty was to remove manure after animals, dirty and hard work. His wife asked him, “Why don’t you change it?” He replied angrily: “What?! Leave the show business?! Never!”