mewcomm

There are Generals who are bureaucrats and Generals who are Warriors

Media reports today say that NSC Advisor General James L. Jones has chided US AfPak Commander General Stanley McChrystal over comments made in a London speech. General McChrystal expressed his personal opinion over the prospects for success in Afghanistan if we do not "surge".  This of course has some in a tizzy.

General Jones won his stars as a Soldier/Statesman. His last decade of military duty saw no service "in harms way". No smell of cordite burned General Jones nostrils. No gut wrenching fear of an IED ambush

General Stanley McChrystal spent the 5 years prior to assuming command in Afghanistan as a Black Ops Warrior. In charge of all Special Opns in the Iraqi theater. His specialty: Stealth, Intelligence and Killing.

The contrast between Jones and McChrystal could hardly be sharper. Jones spent much time in staff jobs and ceremonial command. McChrystal has slept in the dirt of the Middle east for years.

McChrystal's impolitic remarks not withstanding. Decide who you think you'd want to follow. The choice is obvious.

Non Profit Journalism? Maybe, but it's hard to see.

Can "non profit" models of journalism be effective?  This concept is being offered up to fill the void of newspapers that are laying off investigative reporters "left and right". I'm doubtful.

Blogger and media observer Jaclyn Schiff asks,  "What are the limitations" of non profit journalism (serious journalism that is)?

In an online editorial  Charles Lewis & Bruce Sievers   "All the News that's fit to Finance" accurately describe the dire straits ad supported journalism faces.   The business is imploding faster than most of us could have imagined.  The Non-Profit model as called for by various news thinkers is a good option.  But here's where I'm skeptical.

One of the greatest investigative journalism stories of my generation (I'm not talking about  Watergate!  :) ) was the Pentagon Papers crisis. An event Jaclyn surely studied as a student at GWU!  The story was broken by Neil Sheehan of the NY Times and subsequent releases by Daniel Schorr of CBS news. It caused a "Firestorm" in Washington. It was a domestic crisis of enormous magnitude over the Vietnam war  involving the White House, DoD and the Justice department and the press itself. And it challenged the very rationale of a free press and it's role in our nation.

I remember watching Schorr ( I had to go to the library for the NY Times in those days) on TV reporting  the story in the summer of 1971 as a just home from Vietnam student at the University of Texas. It was stunning to watch and read.  In  that analog era, to hear the story reported by Daniel Schorr of CBS news gave it a powerful thrust! This wasn't just anyone it was CBS News and the NY Times!   

So why couldn't a Non-Profit vehicle report such a story now?  They could.  But without the institutional infrastructure of the "Grey Lady" or the huge impact of being one of only three TV networks I believe the story would have far less impact.  With respect to Naomi Klein (Branding matters!).  I knew even then that the NY Times was staffed with serious journalists and a commitment to the highest ethical standards. And moreover they would risk jail to publish such a story!

Could a non-profit news vehicle develop a reputation of journalism excellence? Maybe. And with a wide following?  Unknown.  I think that niche/non-profit reporting while valid will struggle to be heard above the high velocity cacophony of information out there. And the last issue: "Is serious journalism even valued any longer?" Valued enough for citizens to voluntarily pay for it?  I think we know the answer.

I don't know how this plays out. (Like you I'm watching!).  But there is a supreme irony in that we now have more information choices than ever and we're wondering whether the nation is better served. 

Neil Sheehan went on to write "A Bright and Shinning Lie" about Vietnam (and for which he won a Pulitzer prize).  It was a mesmerizing read from a world class reporter. Will we have "world class" reporters anymore? Can they "break out" and be heard? And recognized for their work? Or will they drown in the torrent of words, images and sounds that flood into our lives each day?

Analog Photographer in the Digital Era

If you're a student of photojournalism or a member of the Washington DC press Corps in the 70's and 80's you will  recognize Pulitzer Prize winning photographer David Hume Kennerly . Kennerly is often referred to as a "Political Photographer" after his many years in Washington.  Other American Political Photographers include PF Bentley, Dirck Halstead Wally McNamee, and Diana Walker.  These were huge visual journalists in the Pre-Digital era.  A photo by one of these photographers on the  cover of Time, Life or Newsweek could shape events in a way 1000 images cannot in the visually flooded world of the Internet.  There will not be another group like them. And I was lucky enough to have met all in the group.

Today as I walked through the media compound at the Michael Jackson Memorial service I was surprised to see  a prominent "analog' photographer from the Pre-Digital Era  shooting  images with his CELL PHONE!!!  I pulled up my camera and squeezed off the image below.

Photographically it's not much. But there's much symbolism in the image. Think about it. I did!

"more powerful for good and bad than the edicts of kings and legislatures"

So as this non-stop financial markets story continues I flashed back to one of the most important books I ever read in college.  I dusted it off and started reading mid week.  By the time the political leadership had reached their alleged "breakthrough" I was well into into it.

An excerpt:

"This  is a book about a handful of men with a curious claim to fame. By all the rules of schoolboy history books, they were nonentities: they commanded no armies, sent no men to their deaths, ruled no empires, took little part in history-making decisions. A few of them achieved renown, but none was ever a national hero; a few were roundly abused but none was ever quite a national villain. Yet what they did was more decisive for history than many acts of statesmen who basked in brighter glory, often more profoundly disturbing than the shuttling of armies back and forth across frontiers, more powerful for good and bad than the edicts of kings and legislatures. It was this: they shaped and swayed men's minds."

If you have even the slightest intellectual curiosity about economics and history this engaging and fantastically written book will take you on a journey with a group of men who changed the world.

Read it. You'll be glad you did. Eight dollars used on Amazon.