Bill Press is perhaps best known as one of the early hosts of the influential cable show Crossfire, but he's also a longtime radio talker and columnist for The Hill politics website.
In his most recent column, misleadingly headlined "Shining a Spotlight on media," Press joins a chorus of praise for the movie Spotlight that chronicles the efforts of a Boston Globe reporting team to uncover the sexual abuse scandal that enveloped the Catholic church in the early 2000s.
Look no further than Spotlight for a sterling example of the importance of investigative journalism, Press tells us. When he began his career at KABC-TV in Los Angeles, "there were nine reporters in the investigative journalism department," Press writes. "When I left nine years later, there were zero." One may infer from this that Press getting hired was the kiss of death for KABC-TV's investigative team.
What happened at the station was hardly unusual, Press points out, due to "budget cuts, changing priorities and the shuttering of many daily newspapers." Which is why Press wants you to see Spotlight, a "beautiful movie with Oscar-worthy acting" that is a "celebration of investigative journalism at its best."
Whereupon Press segues to the inevitable reference to Watergate -- "which we would never have learned about" -- if not for the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, a dubious claim that inflates the role of the Post in Nixon's downfall as left wingers have done for more than 40 years.
Along the same lines, Press claims that without reporting done by the Globe, "we would never have learned about the pedophile scandal that rocked the Catholic church across Europe and in more than 100 American cities." Really? With social media on the horizon when the scandal broke, a crime of this magnitude remains hidden in perpetuity?
All of which leads Press to lament that few media outlets still engage in investigative journalism. There's the occasional "non-profit" such as Pro-Publica, but "little in-depth reporting on TV networks and cable." Only major papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Boston Globe still have "fully staffed and operational investigative reporting departments."
It was only a matter of time before Press revealed that his passion for investigative journalism is limited to a specific type -- that undertaken by people who share his politics --
A sad example of what we can expect in the place of hard-hitting, independent investigative journalism recently came to light in Las Vegas, where billionaire Sheldon Adelson bought the (Las Vegas) Review-Journal. As reported by the New York Times, while negotiations to buy the paper were still underway, three of its reporters were ordered to start monitoring three Nevada judges, one of whom is overseeing a lawsuit against Adelson himself.
That's what happens when investigative journalism disappears: Bad guys get away with bad stuff. Go see Spotlight!
One of the "bad guys" here being Adelson himself, who's guilty of the felonious conduct of Owning Vast Wealth While Conservative. On the lengthy liberal list of crimes, there's none more egregious.
Note the curious wording by Press -- prior to the sale of the Review-Journal, while it was run by its previous owner, three reporters were told to start, uh, "monitoring" three judges, one of whom was presiding over a case involving Adelson.
Adelson had yet to buy the paper -- its previous management ordered this. The New York Times story cited by Press doesn't reveal a rationale for the decision or who was behind it. But it's hardly a stretch to suggest that currying favor with the likely new owner for those making the call was part of the mix.
Press then tells us that this is "what happens when investigative journalism disappears." And it's replaced by what? Voila! More journalism. Through pluck and perseverance, this might become -- Ta da! -- investigative journalism. The three people "monitoring" those judges -- reporters, correct? And in the course of their "monitoring" -- Press can't bring himself to describe it as "reporting" because doing so would demolish his premise -- they just might uncover bias, corruption and who knows what else. These things take time, but you have to start somewhere.
Regardless, this scenario most assuredly could never be considered "investigative journalism," at least not to Press. As far as he's concerned, that can only occur at such predictably liberal yet somehow "independent" bastions as the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune -- along with the Boston Globe that overlooked decades of sexual abuse in the Catholic church until a local alternative weekly helpfully broke the story.
