Goofus and Gallant in MediaLand
But my favorite was always "Goofus and Gallant." As if the title doesn't spell it out clearly, G&G were two brothers that did the exact opposite when it came to certain situations. Dramatically overwritten contrasts were drawn for the reader: I seem to recall them being along the lines of 'Goofus doesn't tuck his shirt in when he's at school but Gallant has a wonderfully-tight necktie knot and is dressed to the nines.' Or even worse, almost to the point of 'Goofus uses food as fingerpaint while the other one volunteers at a soup kitchen,' or … you get the idea.
Well today in MediaLand we have a Goofus and Gallant of our very own. In this case, it is "Goofus tossed out rumor and hearsay and innuendo for no reason but political calculation," with the role of Goofus being played by Bob Novak, who wrote in an Internet column:
Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.S-o-o-o-o-o-o-o, what exactly is the point here? What is this scandalous information? Who was divulging this information? Is there anything to this quote-unquote story aside from empty posturing? Novak's not telling, content to just toss this grenade into the room and walk away, prompting Time's Joe Klein to comment that Novak might have "simply abandoned all pretense of being a journalist."
On the other hand, there's Gallant. Today in MediaLand, "Gallant decides to show some amount of restraint and responsibility and refused to feed the media scandal material," with Gallant being the Albany Times-Union editor Rex Smith:
I'm doing something here that's not very nice: I'm letting you know that I know something you don't know. And while I'll tell you why I'm keeping this secret, I will not tell you what I know.Here are two media organs presented with the opportunity to feed the tabloid nature of the news industry, and choosing opposite courses. Assuming that Novak wasn't told of any details about the scandal -- as he said -- he might have just been a channel for empty threats. Maybe there's more to it than he was letting on, but his little 'post about nothing' served as a sideshow and sucked some attention away from the actual campaigning being done. Thanks, Bob. Glad you got your story filed this week.I know -- in fact, several of us in the Times Union newsroom know -- who was riding in the car with ex-U.S. Rep. John Sweeney when he was driving drunk on the Northway last Sunday morning. A lot of people are curious about the woman, but you're going to just have to stay that way…
A lot of people figure that in the age of the Internet, there's no place for the sort of editorial judgment our decision represents. We who work in the mainstream media are sometimes labeled as arrogant for the choices we make about what to publish and what to withhold. People say the era of the editor as gatekeeper of the news is over.
Well, fine. Knock yourselves out on Google, folks. At this newspaper, though, we will continue to do our best to thoughtfully shape a package of content that is important or relevant or useful or just plain interesting, and we'll offer it to you only if it meets what we consider appropriate journalistic ethical standards. We will make mistakes and fail sometimes, but we'll do our best.
Then there's the Albany decision. Here they have a story about a former congressman, drunk-driving (after, ironically, having been the "Stop-DWI Coordinator" early in his career) with some young lady on his lap. Is it newsworthy? Heck yes, considering his position as a public figure, the fact he was caught doing something he'd campaigned against and the fact he's been openely considering running again.
But why'd the Albany Times-Union decline to take the cheap shot and not name the young women when they could have? They looked up an old journalistic ethics book and saw the words "Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity."
So there's your Goofus and Gallant for today. Here's hoping that there are more Gallants than Goofuses in MediaLand – Gallants, after all, tend to do the right thing in silence – and that they get just as much national exposure and prestige that as the Goofuses.
A guy can hope, can't he?