I am stimulated (like most) by the absorption of information (a less than shocking revelation). Fundamentally, I retain information from a diverse set of physical interactions and communications. Yet, I credit the majority of my intelligence-gathering with a less personal mode of discovery — perusing new text. While interesting information is available via fiction, I understand the “real” stuff to be most relevant to my development.
No longer does a daily newspaper limit my input, rather I am free to roam a web full of comments, opinions, and reports at all hours of the day. Since political happenings provoke my curiosity, I still admire the traditional journalist, for his or her service of contributing knowledge, judgment and opinion to me and to the rest of the public. By attaching some version of a byline to a published piece, a journalist accepts responsibility and adds his or her mark to record. Even with new outlets and new audiences, the journalist who qualifies as a public intellectual is rare.
Today, with new ways to discover and distribute information, it seems necessary to define and question the role of the journalist. No longer is Cronkite, Wolfe or Halberstam the sole source of news or intellectual input. The problem plaguing newspapers includes a lack of an intermediate force between the reader and the news, which then disrupts them from vouching for the legitimacy of information. Nearly all of us are capable of generating news or opinion — average bloggers, political and entertainment personalities, and obviously pundits and reporters.
In 2008, whom do we consider a journalist and more importantly why would we ever consider this person a public intellectual? One would argue that any Joe on the Internet who provides the public with some intellect is a public intellectual. With this in mind, my initial intuition is that a traditional journalist certainly classifies as an above standard public intellectual. In theory, a journalist provides (what we hope to be) intellectual information to the public. In reality, however, not all journalists offer a mix of (objective) reporting, analysis, criticism and commentary. In no way am I arguing for an irrefutable connection between journalist and public intellectual, but the quality of the contribution from some journalists qualifies them into this unique category.
Stephen Mack points to Jean Bethke Elshtain, who coins the public intellectual as:
“… not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose” (insert link)
Journalist
Christopher Hitchens argues that:
“To be a public intellectual is in some sense something that you are, and not so much something that you do. Many scholars are intelligent and highly regarded professors, but they are somehow not public intellectuals.”
Am I giving the journalist too much credit? Often times, he or she fails to provide us with anything close to a stimulating thesis or argument. Is this a result of system that is tired of traditional intellect and impartial comment? Blame the editors, no the writers, or wait the readers. Do Americans care anymore-about hearing from a responsible journalist or more importantly from an informed public intellectual? We certainly care for the daily musings of Hannity, Limbaugh and Olbermann. Still, these three characters are not eligible for public intellectuals.
I am referring to the public informants who offer written information via periodicals. Although some traditional journalists maintain an online presence, they still offer their primary comment through newspaper or magazine. Since a journalist writes with others in mind, he or she has the ideal opportunity for public interaction and for influencing sentiment. I understand the archetypal public intellectual adds brilliant complexities to the dialogue, but I believe this intricacy is difficult to translate for the public. To qualify, an intellectual must inspire the minds of his or her audience by providing privileged details, styling the prose in unique fashion, and opening wonder into worthwhile topics. With the advantage in communicating with the reader as opposed to the listener, the print journalist relies on a greater sense of permanence and more pressure for precise words and details.
So why do journalists Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and Fareed Zakaria earn places on
The Prospect/Foregin Policy Top 100 Public Intellectuals list ? Not only do these three connect with wide audiences, but also such intellectual contributions earn them true admiration from a scholarly following. While reaching a consistent level of sophistication, they consistently serve up smart commentary rather than partisan talking points. In addition, all three expose themselves even more by hosting personal websites. Most importantly, these three convince me that in order to stand as a public intellectual, a journalist must be analytical. As
Hutchins again argues:
“However, the attitude towards authority should probably be s[k]eptical, as should the attitude towards utopia, let alone to heaven or hell.”
I believe that this country still boasts a high number of public intellectuals – all of whom serve a critical role of our democracy. Even if they express opinion, they do so with reason and justification. Journalists such as Nicholas Kristoff, Bob Woodward, Robert Novak, George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Eugene Robinson serve in this capacity. While Noonan has provided us with some recent
slip-ups, no public intellectual is without faults.
Most importantly, they situate themselves in politics as well respected players for both sides of the aisle. They share opinions on the most prestigious few pages of the most respectable publications in the country (the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Given the government’s recent attempt at managing the news, the public intellectual is obligated to criticize, advise, and predict. These writers seem comfortable retaining a relatively low profile, but also serving as intellectual personalities. They do not require public banter to succeed or inspire further thought.
Matt Bai, a political writer for the New York Times Magazine, serves as a good example of a rising public intellectual. Although his name is less recognized than some of the journalists mentioned earlier, Bai also explores fascinating content and explores these subjects in great depth. And while his resume may not yet rival his fellow journalists before, Bai still provides a tremendous service as a public intellectual.
He has openly investigated
subjects such as race (“Is Obama the End of Black Politics?”) and class (“The Poverty Platform”) in relation to current political strategy. I was lucky enough to hear Bai’s comments at the
2008 Politics Online Conference in Washington DC. He situated himself as a curious new age public intellectual who stumbled across the net-roots movement. Now he is entangled in an Internet constructed by the earliest bloggers such as Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. Bai did attend Tufts and Columbia School of Journalism, but his biggest academic achievement seems to be the Pulitzer Traveling Fellowship. Additionally, he served as a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government.
What I admire most about Bai is his dedication to each story. He offers in-depth details and he captures the essence of a situation or another person well-constructed essays. He captures the spirit of the new progressive movement and the changing political atmosphere among Democrats. As he said in his speech at the politics online conference, the Internet is changing everything – politics one of the last American institutions to pick up to this change. As
Bai says to the Columbia Journalism Review:
"Particularly, I think the move toward punditry and the culture of competing for time on cable television is toxic to the business. And I think we as an industry should reexamine why we do it, and if we should do it at all. I think it has definitely eroded the public’s trust in us."
With Bai’s understanding of the new online intellectual movement, he provides a voice of reason with regards to the complexity of the subject matter. Sound bite television journalism seems to have ruined our appreciation for that medium. With this in mind, Bai extends his thinking and his conversation to all intellectuals — even those who exist online. Bai says again to the CJR:
“I think there’s a lot of really valuable criticism that gets done on the blogs. After I talk to you, I’m gonna go see Markos from Daily Kos and Jerome from My DD to talk to them about our respective book projects, and I think they have a lot to offer to the debate.”
This journalist seems eager and therefore his curiosity is reflected in his work. While Bai may not represent an intellectual elite, he is able to provide a unique quality of work. By not publishing on a so consistent basis, he restricts his audience to a few very well thought out constructions.
I admire Matt Bai and look forward to further discussions about the public intellectual and his relationship to this class of thinkers.
_A.Scott
Posts
