Put that directly, most people, maybe even most "mainstream" journalists, would say yes. But in practice, those journalists are unwilling to make the most obvious follow-ups on the most horrific of failures, such as this one.
From long experience, I can predict that even this story will not lead our local journalists to ask the obvious questions of the obvious officials. For example, I greatly doubt that Sean Robinson, who appears to have done fine reporting on this story, will take the next, obvious step. He will not call Governor Christine Gregoire and ask her why she failed to protect this abused girl. Nor will he call former governor Gary Locke with the same question.
Nor will any other local journalists take that obvious step, if past experience is a guide. Instead they will leave the story where it is now: Something horrific happened, but our "mainstream" journalists will not hold any elected official responsible for the state's failure to protect this little girl.
I would be delighted to be wrong in that prediction. I care greatly about these victims of the state's neglect, and I do not believe that we can do a better job of protecting unless we are willing to hold officials responsible for these failures — even if those officials are Democrats.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Do "mainstream" journalists hold Republican officials responsible for their failures? Often, sometimes even when the failure is not the fault of the official. For example, a year or so ago, a bureacrat at the Department of Veteran's Affairs took home a laptop with information on it about veterans. The laptop was stolen by a burglar, and there was great fear for a time that the information on it would be sold to the wrong people. (As I recall, the laptop was recovered and no information was lost.)
The Seattle Times ran an editorial blaming the VA Secretary for this loss — in spite of the fact that the department has an explicit policy forbidding employees, including this bureaucrat, from taking out laptops with this kind of information on them.
Note to commenters: I separated this post from the post below because I wanted to keep this issue separate. Please keep the comments to this post on the topic. In other words, agree or disagree with my prediction that local journalists will not hold elected officials responsible for this scandal, agree or disagree with my desire that local journalists do that, but please leave the comments on the case itself for the earlier post.
And if you agree with me — and care about these kids — consider sending a link to this post to one or more of our local journalists.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 26, 2007 09:48 AM | Email ThisI think if you know journalists they don't think they are being biased but somehow they feel it is okay to ask more thorough questions of Rs.
In my ideal world, I would prefer they ask tough questions on all parties rather than never ask tough questions to either.
Posted by: swatter on June 26, 2007 10:08 AMIf a reporter is tasked with investigating the failures of Democrats, like in this DSHS tragedy, they might do it, albeit less harshly than if it is a Republican problem. But if they are not tasked by their editors to do it, why would they? Now they might have an angle if they can highlight the actions of the one case worker, but even criticism can be watered down to seem trivial.
The gatekeepers in the media are not the reporters that make up 95% of the journalists out there, but their editors who determine what is to be covered and what is to be investigated. And if those positions of leadership are controlled by persons of similar liberal political slant, then it really doesn't matter who is doing the actual reporting, as whatever those editors ultimately want printed is what will eventually get printed.
If 90% of mainstream journalists support Democrats, is it any stretch of the imagination to suggest that close to 100% of editors support Democrats? Personally, I'd be amazed to see any names of editors with the Times or PI who primarily support Republicans, who actually control national or local political news coverage.
Will I ever accept that these "professionals" are so welled trained that they can bury their personal biases? I know that I could never do it. I know that it is impossible. And every time someone in the media suggests they are doing it, I see either a fool or a liar.
Posted by: MJC on June 26, 2007 11:15 AMBack in the 70?s Pierce County politicians including the elected Sheriff were convicted along with Carbone, Calcurcio et all (and before you ask, yes one and the same individual who was delivering bags of cash to King County council members a year or two ago) of Arson, Conspiracy, Murder and on and on and on. Everybody except the Buffoon knew exactly what the Tiki, The High Hat, The Flitter Inn were and anybody with any ?street? connections was also aware of the connection to government officials.
Fast forward a couple years and the ?talk of Tacoma? was regarding the goings on at the Chaplin?s Pantry, everybody and anybody knew full well what was going on and yet the Buffoon was ?shocked? when the Frugal Gourmet was finally brought to justice.
When David Brame was elevated to the position of Chief of Police residents of Tacoma who knew of him and his reputation were horrified. The Buffoon once again was ?caught off guard? according to their own self-assessment, however if you ask me they were conspicuous in their absence of follow up on what was basically, ?common knowledge.?
These are just three highlights of what I have come to expect from the local ?journalists,? to say that I have serious reservations regarding what they learned in Journalism School regarding the responsibilities of journalists (who by the way also get privileges others don?t enjoy).
From Pierce County council member - Wendell Brown?s whore hopping to other Pierce/Tacoma elected officials? shady dealings and connections to organized crime, don?t expect to read about it in the News Buffoon, this applies to anyone with favorable relations with City Hall for that matter.
WTF do they think we all are idiots, what this was was a crass attempt to allow union thuggery to browbeat people into having the Union look after their interests - kind of like the Mafia offering protection, huh
And it happened -- probably happened more that it would have if people felt they could step in -- because everyone assumed the Bureau-State takes care of stuff like this.
The worse of all worlds: experts not doing their jobs; the public assuming it's all bought and paid for.