Another good journalist bites the dust

Back in the 1990s, the image of esteemed journalists collecting cash from corporate interests for hobnobbing with them, like politicians lending an ear to their money men, steamed a columnist named David Broder. He said:

"It’s clear that some journalists now are in a market category where the amount of money that they can make on extracurricular activities raises, in my mind, exactly, and, clearly, in the public’s mind, exactly the same kind of conflict-of-interest questions that we are constantly raising with people in public life. . . .

"People think that we are part of the establishment and therefore part of the problem. I mean, what bothers me is the notion that journalists believe, or some journalists believe, that they can have their cake and eat it too, that you can have all of the special privileges, access and extraordinary freedom that you have because you are a journalist operating in a society which protects journalism to a greater degree than any other country in the world, and at the same time you can be a policy advocate. You can be a public performer on the lecture circuit or television. I think that’s greedy."

What he might add today: Greed is good. Harpers reports that Broder has joined the ranks of the bought-and-paid-for corporate journalist.

Guess when you're esteemed enough, you don't need credibility. This should help convince the public journalists aren't part of the problem.