I've been reading the very sobering series about Walter Reed Army Medical Center by Dana Priest and Anne Hull. It was hard to read, because it was about real lives and real problems, things that aren't easily solved. But now, because of the reporting, the problems are there in plain site - everyone sees them. Now, there are solutions being discussed. This is a role that the MSM is uniquely suited for -- months of reporting, investing time, energy, insight into bringing light to a place where it is sorely needed. I've written about this before -- it's the piece that I'm scared we lose in an era of "new" or citizen journalism. There is more to journalism than the ability to write well, and as yet there is no institution out there that seems to be doing a good job of holding a light up to power.
From Salon, Glenn Greenwald talks about the investment of time here:
Two Washington Post reporters spent hundreds of hours in Mologne House documenting the intimate struggles of the wounded who live there. The reporting was done without the knowledge or permission of Walter Reed officials, but all those directly quoted in this article agreed to be interviewed.
And then adeptly contrasts this with criticism the reporters had cast their way by partisan bloggers. Let's be clear -- nobody is immune from criticism. We should all hold institutions of power -- and this includes the media -- accountable for what they say and do. If there are problems with reporting, let's expose them to the same scrutiny. But let's not do it in unsubstantiated, label-laden ways that prey on the idea of journalists as partisan hacks.
In a smaller, faster world, with more information than knowledge, we all need to be looking to build up authoritive sources and hold them to a higher standard, not drag everything down to opinion and innuendo.