Is it something in the water there?

Daniel Henninger, the Wall Street Journal's excellent editorial page writer on politics has an interesting column today in his Wonderland column which appears on Fridays. (Subscription required) Henninger wonders why the Washington press is obsessed with the stories they are. He especially focuses on the Scooter Libby/Plame affair that seems to have caught up a good part of Washington for a long time. He quotes the National Review's Byron York in something that came out in a hearing on the case about a week ago -

"CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued . . . that as far as the perjury charges against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby are concerned, it does not matter whether or not Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA agent . . . 'We're trying a perjury case', Fitzgerald told Judge Reggie Walton. Even if Plame had never worked for the CIA at all, Fitzgerald continued -- even if she had been simply mistaken for a CIA agent -- the charges against Libby would still stand. In addition, Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer 'any proof of actual damage' caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity."

So the obsession about outing a covert agent, which the press chattered about for many months, is not the story? Does it matter that Mr. Libby and perhaps Ms. Wilson/Plame had their professional and personal reputations besmerched if not ruined?

The larger issue here is what should the press do for a living? Clearly in the last decade they have decided that their role is both to report the news in their own special way and to create controversey. I come back to the ideal that I grew up with of the journalist who was obsessed with getting the story right not getting the story dirty. In my youth we had this quaint notion about the role of the press - that was parodied with plays like Front Page. That remarkable play was seen as a comedy then. Today it might well be seen as an instruction manual.

One other comment. There are some very good reporters. In California, two that come to mind are Daniel Weintraub whose blog is a must read for anyone interested in California politics. Dan does not mask objectivity, he often states his opinion. But he also does some hard digging on a range of issues that no one else bothers to cover. His columns in the paper are first grounded in fact.

Then there is the LA TImes Stuart Silverstein. Stu has focussed on higher education in the last several years. In several stories where he talked to me he would call me back after an interview to be sure that he got my comments correctly. He seems to have a genuine interest in higher education issues and in finding out a lot and then telling it in a cogent way.

I am sure that there are others like that but the notion that someone who deals with the press has to think to find people who seem interested in conveying the substance and not the scandal of an issue - says something. Whether there is something especially pernicious in Washington that encourages the press to work toward the lowest common denominator or whether it is something more pervasive - the long term role of the press will be diminished. More importantly, the new press will be less a bulwark for informing our population.