Why Joseph Pulitzer Still Matters--Part One of a Two Part Series.

This is Joseph Pulitzer. 

Of all my heroes—many of whom appear on the banner across the top of this blog—Joseph Pulitzer is the top of the pops. I’ve published one article about him in the journal of the Missouri Historical Society, and I’m writing a full length historical novel about him. In a subsequent post, I’ll explain why I love the man. But in this one, I’ll explain why he still matters. Joseph Pulitzer died in 1911, but he’s more relevant now than ever.

The recent revelations of phone-hacking, police corruption, and intimidation by that venomous old reptile Rupert Murdoch come as no surprise. His career—that trail of fecal slime smeared across two centuries and four continents—made abundantly clear his callous and utter disregard for truth, accuracy, journalistic ethics, and the responsibility of the press in a free society. So it shouldn’t be shocking that he—and the equally amoral minions who flocked to his employ like flies to filth—had a similar disregard for the rights of individuals, basic human decency, and finally, the law.

This is a venomous old reptile. 

A lot of fatuous comparisons have been made between Murdoch and Pulitzer, some in as enlightened a publication as the New Yorker. And there are some superficial similarities. Both had an uncanny ability to appeal to the common man and a mastery of sensationalistic journalism which them financial success and political influence. But philosophically, Pulitzer and Murdoch couldn’t further apart. The damning coziness between the Murdoch’s News Corp. and the governments of both Great Britain and the United States stand in stark contrast to Joseph Pulitzer, the relentless opponent of both corporate and federal power.    

His newspapers’ independence was sacrosanct to Pulitzer. He was almost paranoiacally scrupulous about avoiding any entanglements—personal, financial, or political—which could have compromised his ability to report the news. He didn’t even trust himself with safeguarding his newspapers’ independence. He once told an editor, “Boy, as you know, I am a large owner of stocks. If ever I order you to write a piece favoring one of those companies, or kill a piece which might damage one, you are to disregard those orders and remind me of this conversation.”

But instead of Pulitzer’s independent and vigilant press, we have today an unholy collusion between media and government. Our government relies upon a media increasingly controlled by a tiny cadre of corporate conglomerates—only 16  corporations now control 95% of the world’s media—to get elected. And our press now relies completely upon the government for its information.

During the Valerie Plame affair, the New York Times went to great—some would say heroic—lengths (even to the extent of letting reporter Judith Miller go to jail) to, as publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger II piously declared, “protect our friends in government.” Which, while sounding noble, ignores Pulitzer’s dictum that “a newspaper should have no friends.” And he was right. Once you become dependent upon sources within the government for your information, you have, ipso facto, ceded control of the flow of information to that very entity.

Which uncomfortable fact the Times learned to its chagrin when it published a false story that Dick Cheney’s office “leaked” about weapons of mass destruction buildup in Iraq. And the exact day that story appeared on the front page, Cheney himself appeared on “Meet the Press,” citing that selfsame story—which his office had planted—as justification for our government’s horrendous and lethal actions in Iraq. Cheney and company played the Good Gray Lady like a fiddle. This would not have happened on a Pulitzer paper. And that’s why we need a man like him today.

Pulitzer’s detractors—and there were, and are, many—would disagree. They look at his rabid partisanship and no-holds-barred sensationalism and say good riddance to bad rubbish. But they were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.

Pure objectivity is an impossible standard. All our information is twice filtered through our own preconceptions—when we receive it, and when we dispense it. So long as humans remain human, we can’t be objective or dispassionate, and we shouldn’t try. Journalism is, by its very existence, activist—journalists make a value judgment simply by deciding what to write about. Their objectivity disappears as soon as their fingertips touch the keyboard. So let’s dispense with attempting the impossible.

As for sensationalism—screaming headlines, lurid copy, shocking pictures, and all the rest of the practices that separate the tabloids from the respectable press—what’s the matter with it?

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with sensationalism as a style of journalism. It’s neither inherently trivial nor inherently dishonest. Sobriety and respectability are no guarantee of truth or accuracy as the Jayson Blair/New York Times and Janet Cooke/Washington Post debacles so clearly illustrate. For all his sensationalism, Pulitzer was obsessive about accuracy. Moreover, it served a very practical purpose.

The press is a crucial component of a free society. It’s the watchdog; the oversight branch of government. And in order to play that role, it must be independent of either government or corporate control. But maintaining that independence demands money. That’s where sensationalism comes in. Sensationalism brings readers; readers bring advertisers; advertisers bring money; and money brings independence.

Pulitzer’s papers had what today’s media doesn’t: popular trust. Many of his readers despised him and his politics, but they knew they weren’t being lied to, because they knew that he wasn’t in bed with any political party, company, or industry. Now, precisely one century after his death, we have lost faith in our government to represent our interests. More ominously, the shenanigans of people like Murdoch and his foul ilk have eroded our faith in the media to tell us the truth. And when that happens, you can kiss democracy good-bye. Because once people no longer believe in the system, they will stop participating in it. And that’s the death knell of a democratic society.

Joseph Pulitzer, in 1904, said, “A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." Tragically, he was as accurate a prophet as he was a journalist.