Did the media give Spitzer a free ride?

Did you read the Kimberley Strassel op-ed piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal entitled “Spitzer’s Media Enablers?”

 

She hit damn hard, with great detail, saying the press was Spitzer’s “enabler,” “most reporters were his accomplices” and they were “adoring.”

 

Strassel said, “Yet from the start, the press corps acted as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it. Many journalists get into this business because they want to see wrongs righted. Mr. Spitzer portrayed himself as the moral avenger. He was the slayer of the big guy, the fat cat, the Wall Street titan – all allegedly on behalf of the little guy. The press ate it up, and came back for more.”

 

Strassel cited several media examples, including Time magazine naming Spitzer “Crusader of the Year;” Fortune calling him “the Enforcer,” and Atlantic Monthly “fawning” that he was “a rock star” and “the Democratic party’s future.”

 

Strassel continued, “What makes this more embarrassing for any self-respecting journalist is that Mr. Spitzer knew all this, and played the media like a Stradivarius. He knew what sort of storyline they’d be sympathetic to, and spun it. He knew, too, that as financial journalism has become more competitive, breaking news can make a career. He doled out scoops to favored reporters, who repaid him with allegiance. News organizations that dared to criticize him were cut off. After a time, few criticized anymore.”

 

There’s an undercurrent in the blogosphere – and a little bit with select traditional offline media – that the Fourth Estate ain’t what it used to be. Some people believe reporters aren’t tough enough, investigative enough, relentless enough. They think some political and corporate stories aren’t pursued as aggressively as they should be. They’re frustrated with the media giving too many free rides to people, issues and companies that should get the full treatment.

 

What do you think?

 

Has the high-level print-based U.S. media changed dramatically from, say, the Watergate era when Woodward and Bernstein grabbled hold of their story and never let go? Is it about the same? Or has Strassel painted an unfair picture?