Will The Real Journalists Please Stand Up?

This interesting story by Phlip Rucker in today's Washington Post has finally provided the news hook I've been looking for to talk about an issue that both troubles and fascinates me.

Rucker's story is about how some members of the Obama economic campaign were paid by the media to provide their opinion on some of the same subjects on which they were advising the campaign. The article also says that some of the advisors were paid by various organizations before they joined the administration for giving speeches, participating on panels, and writting commentaries .

There's nothing illegal or unethical about any of this.  The affiliation with the campaign was almost always disclosed when the person being interviewed was introduced. Yes, being an advisor to the next possible president undoubtedly made these people more valuable to the organizations that paid for them to talk or comment.  But at the time they were private citizens and had the right to sell their expertise and connections.

And just in case anyone is wondering, there's no doubt advisors to the Bush campaig were collecting the same types of fees.  The only reason the fees paid to Obama advisors were a story is that the White House disclosed them on Friday.

For me, the troubling and fascinating part of this situation is what's not included in the story: What used to be a very sharp line between the media and everyone else is now so blurred that it's often impossible to tell one even exists.

Consider:

1.  The Bush administration provides former senior military staff with talking points to use when they appear as (presumably objective) paid consultants on television news programs.

2.  Political candidates go back and forth between running for office and hosting their own talk shows.

3.  Newspapers reduce the number of people they have on staff who write op-eds.  These people then take jobs outside of journalism but continue to be paid by the newspaper for op-eds even though their opinions can't possibly be as objective.

4.  Television news talk show hosts openly raise funds for political candidates.

5.  A conservative commentator has a consulting firm that is by paid by a federal agency to increase positive coverage of a particular issue.  This commentator then speaks in positive terms about the issue without disclosing that he is being paid to do so.

Part of the reason for this and many other similar situations is the extraordinary demand that exists these days for content.  The days of three television networks and a handful of newspapers providing all of the news are long gone.  Not only is there a fourth major broadcast television network, but there are cable TV news outlets galore and a number of services like Bloomberg that deliver the news in multiple ways.

Newspapers are, of course, in serious trouble for economic and other reasons.  But online news services and blogs are multiplying like the tribbles from the orginal Star Trek.  News sydicates now provide a great deal of content to local stations.  And newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations now have websites that are revised by the minute and reporters are constantly looking for ways to distinguish their updates from what everyone else is doing.

But that's hardly all.  Wall Street firms, corporations, and associations now use the web to provide their customers, members, and sales teams with daily updates.  Many of these same organizations also have frequent conference calls with guest analysts and speakers.

In other words, there are far more opportunities for individuals to be a news source or featured speaker today than has ever been the case before.  It's not surprising, therefore, that, as this greatly increased demand is met, the line that used to exist between reporting and "opnionating" has disappeared.