Who Watches the Watchers?

The fundamental reason for the existence of an independent press (from the viewpoint of citizens of a free republic) is to examine the actions of government, put them into context, and inform the judgement of the citizens.

It's hardly a secret that Western media, by and large, fails miserably at that task. For example, the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s could have been detected and possibly averted, had any of the myriad reporters in DC actually spent any time looking at the records at the various banking regulators. No one did. Reading through paperwork - government forms at that - is hardly a glamorous occupation, especially when 99.99% of the time there's nothing interesting in the paperwork. But you cannot know what's going to be interesting unless you have the background, and you cannot get the background unless you do the boring stuff that doesn't get you noticed. If there's anything that media cadres are in reality, it's addicted to glamour. Watergate taught them the wrong lesson about their jobs.

Donald Sensing calls attention to another example. The al-Zarqawi memo capture recently in Iraq is analyzed by Mr. Sensing here. Why indeed was it from our enemy, rather than our reporters, that we got this in-depth analysis of the results of our strategy in Iraq? Were the reporters too busy looking for sexy angles and horrible aftermaths (and, most importantly, something - anything - to use against the President) to actually find out what's going on? I hate to say it, but the question answers itself.