Commit journalism.

The Seattle Times columnist drew national attention for her confession (boast?) that she cheered in the Seattle Times newsroom when she heard that Karl Rove had resigned.

I cheered in that meeting because I think Karl Rove is a dangerous man who has done enough whispering in President Bush's ear.

We are at war.  Some $37 billion in federal funds have been spent just for the "reconstruction" of Iraq, even though a majority of Americans want their sons, daughters, spouses and tax dollars out.  Bush's resolve proves we're screaming into the wind.

So you bet I cheered at that meeting.  I cheered because I thought I could.

But I shouldn't have.  It lacked consideration for other people in the room who may have other views about Karl Rove and George Bush, and held their tongues.  It also flew in the face of the standard of objectivity that we as journalists try to uphold every day.  Worse, it validates every fear people have about the media.

In other words, she shouldn't have cheered because that would provide evidence that those fears are justified.  She apparently believes that it is all right to be biased (I almost said, bigoted), but it would be wrong to let the public know that you are.  And the idea that Brodeur, of all people, would claim to be trying to uphold a standard of objectivity, "every day", is, as anyone who has read her columns knows, absurd.  If she is trying, she is failing so miserably that her friends should tell her to give up the effort.  It's like watching a person who claims to be studying to be a ballet dancer trip and fall, again and again.

But let's take her at her word.  Let's suppose that she really does want to uphold a standard of objectivity.  In that case, she should follow the advice I gave in the first paragraph: She should commit journalism.  Specifically, she should go out and listen to people she disagrees with (I almost wrote, despises) and then come back and write a column or two on what those people said — a fair column.  For example, she could spend a week listening to women who are strongly pro-life and then tell us why they believe what they do. (For the record, I should add that I am like most Americans; I do not want to see abortion completely banned, but I would like to see it far more restricted than it is now.  And I have found most pro-life people to be admirable individuals, more decent than most of us.)  Or she could talk to some returning soldiers who think that we should win in Iraq, and then tell us why those soldiers believe in their cause.

Frankly, Ms. Brodeur, I don't think you can do it.  And I am almost certain that you will not try.  But you — and the Seattle Times — would be better off if you did try to commit journalism.  And I would be delighted if you proved me wrong.

(Those who wonder why I have this critical attitude toward Brodeur may want to read some of her columns, for example, this one in which she gushes over Bill Clinton, or this one in which she defends Susan McDougal, who obstructed justice in the Whitewater investigation.  (Brodeur's second paragraph will amuse those who have read the Clinton column.)  Or this one on Monica Lewinsky.  (Who received a job in the Pentagon in order to keep her from talking, something Brodeur does not mention.)  Or even her claim that her columns are a "conversation with readers" rather than her own views.

Or, you can just read these paragraphs from the column I began with:

The hallowed halls of journalism that I was privileged to enter more than 20 years ago are looking more and more like the New York subway.  The walls covered in bloggers' scrawl, the platform crowded with any yahoo with a camera and an open mike.  All are headed to your computer screen or television for the 15 seconds you'll give them before moving on to the next hot spot.

That's not how we do things at this newspaper.

Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk.  We offer opinions on how stories were approached, written and presented.  We say what worked, what didn't, and how we can do it better next time.

I am 99 percent certain that Brodeur does not realize just how funny — and arrogant — those lines are.

Note to commenters:  I decided — because I really do want Brodeur to commit journalism — to disable comments and let the post stand by itself.)