Ezra Klein: 'There Still Might Be' a JournoList

You’ve been way ahead of this curve, c_I_c. OUTSTANDING post & work over the years. Thanks.

BTTT!

Thanks, PG. I really appreciate your generosity. It seems, tho, that I have now become both a Cassandra and a broken record.

I don’t feel the need to say anything different, or even feel able to say the same thing in a more persuasive way. How do I get out of that rut???

Any suggestions? I need criticism!!!

BTTT

That's not a rut you're in that's a groove, a zone, the truth. You see this clearly. You identify the pathogen, the strain that attacks the productive life.

other professional criticizers:

The fundamental principle of socialism is that Theodore Roosevelt was wrong, and that the critic is superior to the performer.

OUTSTANDING! Broader context. Keep it coming, c_I_c.

Thanks for those Adam Smith links. WOW!

But still the general sentiment of friendship and familiar attachment which is common to them all, may be ascertained with a sufficient degree of accuracy. The picture which is drawn of it, though it will always be in many respects incomplete, may, however, have such a resemblance as to make us know the original when we meet with it, and even distinguish it from other sentiments to which it has a considerable resemblance, such as good-will, respect, esteem, admiration. - “Theory of Moral Sentiments”; Adam Smith

Yes, the conclusion of Moral Sentiments was a bit of an eye-opener when I finally took a look at it. I initially searched for
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough.
because I knew Smith had written it, and for a long time I looked no further than the paragraph in which I found that relatively famous quote. But I got to ruminating about the motives of journalists, and it occurred to me to look again near that quote, and I struck gold. I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to sniff around near some of his other famous quotes, too.
On such quote is
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II
. . . which could certainly be used to define socialists if they do insist that “government ownership of the means of production” is the definition of socialism. Which, after all, is a way of insisting that all investment be done by “statesmen” of abounding "folly and presumption.” The quote:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)
has one signal advantage rhetorically, in that it is the only Smith quote that “liberals” like. They think you are agreeing with them, if you quote that. Then you can bring the hammer down and point out that journalism is the one trade which, more than any other, fits Smith’s criterion for falling under suspicion of perpetrating "a conspiracy against the public.”
But if you want your eyebrows lifted, take a look at the rest of Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne (you have to scroll down a little to get the full text). It’s a long speech, and has some interesting reflections in it in addition to “the man in the arena."

Thanks very much. Still reading the grandfather of the RINO/PROGRSSIVE Paris speech but this jumps out 100+ years later…

Foremost among these I should include two very distinct gifts - the gift of money- making and the gift of oratory. Money-making, the money touch I have spoken of above. It is a quality which in a moderate degree is essential. It may be useful when developed to a very great degree, but only if accompanied and controlled by other qualities; and without such control the possessor tends to develop into one of the least attractive types produced by a modern industrial democracy. So it is with the orator. It is highly desirable that a leader of opinion in democracy should be able to state his views clearly and convincingly. But all that the oratory can do of value to the community is enable the man thus to explain himself; if it enables the orator to put false values on things, it merely makes him power for mischief. Some excellent public servants have not that gift at all, and must merely rely on their deeds to speak for them; and unless oratory does represent genuine conviction based on good common sense and able to be translated into efficient performance, then the better the oratory the greater the damage to the public it deceives. Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness in any commonwealth if the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory, if they tend to value words in and for themselves, as divorced from the deeds for which they are supposed to stand. The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.

[IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED WITH]…

Of course all that I say of the orator applies with even greater force to the orator’s latter-day and more influential brother, the journalist. The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright. He cna do, and often does, great good. He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief. All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it. Offenses against taste and morals, which are bad enough in a private citizen, are infinitely worse if made into instruments for debauching the community through a newspaper. Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience. The excuse advanced for vicious writing, that the public demands it and that demand must be supplied, can no more be admitted than if it were advanced by purveyors of food who sell poisonous adulterations.

Of course all that I say of the orator applies with even greater force to the orator’s latter-day and more influential brother, the journalist. The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright. He can do, and often does, great good. He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief. All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it. Offenses against taste and morals, which are bad enough in a private citizen, are infinitely worse if made into instruments for debauching the community through a newspaper. Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience. The excuse advanced for vicious writing, that the public demands it and that demand must be supplied, can no more be admitted than if it were advanced by purveyors of food who sell poisonous adulterations.

. . . To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.
You mean, back in the 1990s there might have been something wrong with journalists talking about how well Bill Clinton brazenly lied!!
I’m shocked - shocked!