Abstract
Writing a title is an exacting art, and too often the effort falls short in capturing the essence of an article. In this case, “The Watchdog Joins the Fray” expertly evokes the crux of this instructive piece. Journalists, according to professional tradition, are supposed to be spectators who remain outside or above the fray, defined as a dispute or even a brawl. And fray can also refer to a worn or raveled spot as on a piece of rope. To stay above the fray, then, is to remain neutral in a conflict, or perhaps to hold onto a safe spot well above the ragged end of a rope.
These are apt metaphors for the concept of objectivity as neutrality. It is not only one of journalism’s most revered traditions but also one that is fraught with contradiction. Although many journalists are reluctant to acknowledge it, objectivity has frequently been honored in the breach. Reporters and their news organizations are often willing to take sides, for instance, when it comes to the findings of their own investigative reports.
The journalists and media organizations in this study stray far afield from the neutral zone, joining the conflict over access to government information as combatants in their own right. Emily Erickson writes of “journalists gathering in a governor’s office to demand policy reform” and “a newspaper editor heading an advocacy group.”
This is an intriguing picture of journalists entangled with power at three distinct historical moments in the struggle for freedom of information: the international free press crusades in the post–World War II years, the push for access laws in the 1950s, and the campaigns for access reforms in the 1990s and beyond.
Erickson rightly notes, “The conception of the press as a political actor is not new.” Scholars such as David Protess and Tim Cook, cited within, have made a strong case for the news media’s role as players in policy making. But this article takes the argument further, revealing media influence that comes not just from pre-publication transactions or framing of policy debates but also sometimes from overt political acts such as lobbying for specific reforms—“the type of advocacy,” Erickson observes, “that is usually considered a fireable offense in a traditional newsroom.”
The issue of access presents an especially interesting case because the news media have a vested interest in the matter, public records being the bread and butter of the journalistic watchdog role. “When it comes to access,” Erickson writes, “the watchdog seems to trump the dispassionate recorder of facts.” Her study includes the first in-depth look at statewide public records audits that came into vogue in the late 1990s and includes interviews with many of the key players in those efforts.
This monograph provides an important view of a press that sometimes acts as an interest group at both individual and institutional levels. It is, in other words, a press that is fully involved in the fray.