Although written a decade ago, The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark remains one of my favorite books.
Dean Starkman is the author. He argues that US journalists are not doing their job when they fail to hold powerful elites to account. As he analyzes media reporting of the global financial collapse that took place roughly 18 years ago, he points out the numerous times that America’s leading newsrooms and journalists didn’t report THE story: Either unwilling or unable to see how the various factors that contributed to the crisis were coming together, journalists didn’t put together a coherent and informed narrative that guaranteed the public understood what was happening, and why. Sadly, their failure left the public grasping for answers as to why their homes, jobs and retirement savings were being erased.
So, why does a book from 2015 still have value today? Part of the answer requires that we review how Starkman evaluates accountability journalism and accessibility journalism.
Accountability journalism takes place when political, business and other industry elites squirm. Accountability journalism is demonstrated by tough but fair questions about policies, plans, goals, actions and the like. It includes digging and digging for data. It requires identifying the right sources and gaining information from them.
Accountability journalism uncovers wrong and then points the finger of blame at who did it. It seeks out corruption because corruption ought not be a part of any industry’s practice. In Starkman’s words, corruption has to be identified because it “coddles incompetence, discourages achievement, and wrecks markets.”
Accountability journalism is never easy. But without it, scrutiny never happens.
Accessibility journalism, in effect, is everything accountability journalism is not. Journalists who fear losing a source by asking hard questions are more interested in their position and access rather than the truth. Such journalism takes place when the desire for clicks and likes is deemed more valuable than earned respect.
Whenever you see a journalist, most especially on radio or TV, fawning over a corporate executive, you are witnessing accessibility journalism. When you see a journalist breathlessly reporting rumors, you are witnessing accessibility journalism. When you see a journalist reporting merely what someone important did and without any reflection or analysis, you are witnessing accessibility journalism.
‘Okay, sure, that’s great,’ you’re thinking. ‘But why should I care?’
Here’s the reality: Credit journalists when they do what they are supposed to do. But also ask why they often allow tired tropes, casual cliches and dangerous demagoguery to form the core of a story. Demand better when negative narratives go unquestioned. Come to think of it, consider who benefits when such narratives remain locked in. Notice whenever an American journalist challenges another head of state about the policies that nation pursues but meekly supports the government line at home.
Whether it’s worse for a journalist to not have the privilege to ask a probing question or to not wisely use that privilege misses the point. Getting stuck in that argument is little more than navel gazing. Instead, pay close attention and evaluate whether the information you are receiving is valuable or warmed over gibberish about a group, idea or country.