Because so much of what we read and write about focuses on what is wrong with X or Y, I wanted to make a contribution, and encourage others to make contributions, about what we consider to be right. 

For example: MSM journalism in general and specific print journalists, in particular, have been under unsparing scrutiny recently and that's fair enough; it's a fact that a great deal of the apologist/puff piece criticism is justified. 

However, it is also true that there are still journalists at work, every day, who combine keen intelligence with careful observation and thorough research whose distilled opinions are those we can respect and in which we can have more than a measure of confidence. Therefore, my original intention in this post was to: a) cite some of the American journalists who still set a standard of excellence amidst their less punctilious colleagues; and, b) offer links to articles they have written that illustrate that point.  

But, as I began to review the recent work of Roger Cohen, Errol Morris and Frank Rich of the NYT, Leonard Pitts, Jr. of the Miami Herald, as well as several others at other publications who, in my opinion, demonstrate both depth of understanding and cut-to-the-chase clarity, I was side-tracked, because I was struck by their coincident examination of the same topic -- personal and/or national responsibility -- which, in their minds at least, is the compelling issue du jour. 

Roger Cohen wrote about the courage that is being demonstrated, quietly, by those who are currently protesting the election results in Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

Errol Morris wrote a series of seven articles that began as a character study of art forger, Han van Meegeren, but which ended in a re-appraisal of the WWII-era Dutch character in general, examining to what degree they, as a people, did or did not collaborate with the Nazis, and to what degree they did, or did not, later rewrite and revise that relationship in an effort to whitewash it: http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/bamboozling-ourselves-part-1/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/bamboozling-ourselves-part-2/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/bamboozling-ourselves-part-3/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/bamboozling-ourselves-part-4/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/bamboozling-ourselves-part-5/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/bamboozling-ourselves-part-6/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/bamboozling-ourselves-part-7/

postscript http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/ 

Frank Rich wrote about the implicit danger of silence, particularly when the resounding significance of that silence is drowned out by a cacophony of diversionary shouting on matters of little importance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=2             .

And Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote about the inside/out, upside/down posturing of the Right, effectively pointing out that "saying it's so does not make it so":

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1100608.html

Together, these articles quietly, but insistently begin to address two points of real importance that have been studiously avoided for far too long:

1) the fact that personal responsibility versus denial of responsibility  has either always been, or has become, the elephant in our western culture living room - the one we are ever more determined to ignore, sweeping it under the rug, even when its vast size is still apparent, under cover, and its extended tail is still clearly visible, and twitching.

2)  the difference in efficacy between shouting and whispering, and why the quieter option is more effective.

So, is journalism of excellence an anachronism, DOA?

If just these four journalists are an example, I think not. I really have hope. Because all of them, jointly and severally, not only meticulously document facts, but also leave, in their traces, attendant questions that assert themselves later -- after the fact of reading what was written -- a treasure trove of thought-provoking subtext to the finely-wrought syllables these wordsmiths crafted. 

The following questions, for example, are those that these particular articles raised in my mind: 

Beyond the issue of perceived personal danger, why is it our choice to remain silent when we are confronted with irrefutable wrong, when our instinct is to protest it?

Why is denial of responsibility for that silence and its consequences not only so predictable but also so readily condoned?  And why does that denial of responsibility seem to require an externalization of blame?

Why is shouting the preferred cover for complicity?

Is the lamentable tendency to shout (IN ALL CAPS as well as in speaking) not only more prevalent, but also more acceptable today than it was in the past?

Why do we, as Americans, insistently shout to accomplish our goals when we might more effectively whisper?  

What is the fundamental relationship between shouting and denial of responsibility?  Is shouting always a cover for complicity, or is it an indication that frustration levels, regardless of political persuasion, are at a boiling point?

Conversely, why is whispering so underrated? When we all know that we strain to hear he, or she, who speaks softly, lest we miss something important, while we clap our hands over our ears, or walk out, or shout in return, to avoid any version of garlic clove/silver stake worthy shrieking?   

 Please take the time to read these articles by these remarkable journalists. And then jump in, and list the questions raised in your mind, as well as the list of things that, in your mind, are more right than wrong.