When Howard Tyner, the Chicago Tribune's then new editor-in-chief, asked me to leave Chicago and try my hand in Washington, there was no blueprint. There was just a desire to somehow turn out more stories that readers back in the Heartland found interesting. His perception, and I think mine too, was that our product becomes a bit too static, a bit too beholden to daily agendas set by the likes of The Washington Post and The New York Times.

I said, "Let's try to inspect the town more as if we were foreign correspondents reporting back on an important place with a particular, even peculiar, culture and set of mores."

I wrote about the fawning over White House staffers at a Christmas party at the White House, where journalists lined up dutifully for twenty or thirty minutes to have their picture taken with the president and first lady. I wrote about the coziness between subject and reporter, as well as journalists' willingness to gain and protect their prized access at virtually any price. When I stumbled upon the following, and wet behind the ears, naive soul that I was, passed the news on to Tribune readers, I quickly was threatened with caricature as a self-promoting rogue from the Heartland: I found out that Lesley Stahl of CBS took $20,000 from CIGNA, the insurance giant, for moderating an in-house video conference in which six purported experts -- all opponents of last year's Clinton health care reform plan -- bashed the plan as they debated the plan. (Even Stahl was moved to the arguably embarrassing admission to the audience at the end of this ninety-minute Clinton thrashing that it was probably unfortunate that there was nobody from the Clinton administration to take part.)

Cokie Roberts of ABC and National Public Radio took $20,000 from one health care association right smack in the middle of that very health care debate she was covering as the network's congressional reporter.

And there were other examples.

I guess some deem it uninformed to suggest that a reporter simply not be involved in any business transaction with anyone he or she covers, any group whose interest the reporter covers, or anybody with a clear stake in congressional legislation.

Lots of things are changing in American media. You've read about downsizing in lots of other industries, of the seeming fashion now to cut even when you are perfectly healthy and making scads of money. It's all happening in the media.

As is true throughout the economy, there is far less a sense of loyalty among workers toward their employers. People are working longer hours for less money; instead of relying on gut instincts, many editors may now fall back on focus group research: asking consumers what they want. It can all be a bit deadening -- not especially romantic, not especially inspiring, not very adventurous, not much fun at times.

So what do you do? Well, for starters, I would urge you not to be too smitten with New York. Don't think it's slumming, having been so close to the center of media power, to head off to bust your fanny and learn a craft. High quality work may come despite the hurdles placed before you.

You may, for example, be dealing with a cautious, journalistic technocrat who is where he or she is not because they rocked lots of boats in younger days, but precisely because they didn't. It might be disconcerting, even mildly depressing, and prompt brief consideration of going into investment banking or corporate public relations. I urge you, though, to persist and to realize the need, especially in this environment, of setting your own standards.

Be mindful that there is some room for terrific stuff. There are many, many wonderful little places with reporters and editors far more passionate than their famous counterparts in big cities. They're the people who really are in the places where they are to be journalists and serve their communities. They're not just looking out for Number One.

And in a small place you may find the wonderful pressures of accountability. You may have to walk down a small street in a town and run into someone you reported on. It places a premium on accuracy, a value that will probably always reign supreme.

I don't have a clue at all how a lot of this new media stuff that you guys have learned about is going to turn out and if truth be known, most of the people running major media companies don't know either. But I would wager a few bucks at least, that most enterprises will still rise or fall on the quality of their basic reporting and editing. You can fake things for a while, but I don't think you can b.s. consumers for too long.

And whether you end up covering some rape case in Wyoming or on some cold, union picket line at a Minnesota meat packing plant in the middle of winter, or just doing a soft feature on the World Cup soccer games in the Jersey Meadowlands, please remember that this is a really, really neat, fun way to lead a life.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe