A media guy asks: Why do they hate us?

There’s no question media people think highly of themselves. We tend to be well-educated and worldly, and we consider ourselves worthy to help shape what the entire country reads, watches, and listens to. But what’s equally clear is that the general public does not hold us in such esteem....

link: A Media Guy Asks: Why Do They Hate Us?: Matt Pressman | Vanity Fair

Here's the odd thing: Back in the '60s and '70s when thousands of young idealists decided we would save the world by exposing corruption and wrong-doing and general stupidity by becoming newspaper reporters, veteran reporters and editors were, for the most part, lazy -- but charming -- drunks. Reporting and writing was sloppy, with little enterprise or investigation or original work. Plagiarism was common. Press releases were printed verbatim, and passed off as the newspaper's work.

I worked for an afternoon newspaper in the late '60s and early '70s. We started our days before dawn in a headlong rush to get the first edition on the streets by 8 a.m. Across the street was a shabby bar/restaurant, eloquently called The House of Morgan, where writers and editors had eggs and Bloody Marys for breakfast.

And the media was widely respected and believed.

Then came a tidal wave of reporters and editors who were educated and (mostly) sober and who did amazingly creative work. They transformed newspapers from gray bulletin boards to sparkling guardians of freedom and champions of the little guy. The quality and character of the print media improved dramatically in the '70s, especially after Watergate when the really bright kids dumped pre-med and went for journalism. Need a Harvard grad with a masters to cover cops for $100 a week? No problem.

For the next three decades, newspapers -- and the people who produced them -- just kept getting better. Even small papers were doing quality, original work. Sometimes incredible work. And under really crappy conditions. You went home feeling proud of what you produced.

And the media was widely reviled.

It would be nice if someone would do a serious study to find out why attitudes changed so dramatically. I suspect it had something to do with the arrogant, bullying attitude many reporters and newspapers took. With the anti-Establishment tone of the front page, with the relentless support of the little guy. With the fact that newspaper people tend to be iconoclasts. And with the widespread -- but false -- belief that the media is way liberal. (Writers who are attracted to an industry where they can right wrongs are surely as liberal as Christians who are attracted to an industry where they can save sinners.) But the truth is that the editorial position of newspapers is unfailingly conservative, reflecting the opinions of the owners. But I digress.

It just seems strange that, as the industry became better, its public standing declined.

–Paul Knue