Transparent as mud “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel” is an aphorism attributed to someone who actually did buy his ink by the barrel, Benjamin Franklin – and one that perhaps Gov. Bobby Jindal will test, but with good reason. Jeremy Alford – who’s an independent journalist who therefore has to contract out his stories without a set paycheck to rely upon – put into print frustration that other journalists no doubt have felt concerning Jindal and his administration’s tight control of information it will release about the inner workings of his governing. No doubt exacerbating Alford’s distress is by not being on some corporate payroll, he has less of a margin for error in what he can deliver and thereby becomes more dependent on getting information for stories. Without it, it’s harder for him to do the job the way he thinks it should be done. Whether Jindal’s infant administration will end up being more closed-lipped about stuff than any others – we all too quickly have forgotten how reluctant the Kathleen Blanco Administration was to release documents about her handling of the hurricane disasters (never completely, and with, from her political perspective, good reason not to) – chances are even if it isn’t you will hear more grumbling out of the media about Jindal’s than those of past governors. But the reasons why really rest with the media itself. Like it or not, and regardless whether the media will admit them, there are certain realities about reporters in general that are going to cause reactions similar to Alford’s. To all my friends in the media, do note that I write here in general terms, for not all reporters carry these attitudes. But if they are honest with themselves, they will recognize the veracity of these observations concerning many in their profession – particularly in those who regularly cover politics: First, the only profession whose members are more cynical about politicians than political scientists is journalism. Because journalists have seen so many up-close-and-personal examples of self-interest getting in the way of policy, the natural (and lazy) reaction is from any political action to wring out the possibility that self-interest is not the primary motivator for the politicians in question. Indeed, many evolve to the point where they think the system cannot keep such people out of office, so they think practically anybody who wins elections, if given a chance, always will sell out the public good for the private, which then complements and magnifies a second attitude. That is an inflated sense of place they give themselves as journalists. Seeing politics as so corrupt and venial, they become convinced that journalists are literally the figurative finger in the dike that prevents water from washing away democracy through their provision of information, holding the politicians’ veniality at bay. Some feel if it weren’t for them, constantly pressuring politicians from trying to hide things and exposing dirty laundry when necessary, the country would be up a creek without them as the paddle. Unfortunately, it elevates their sense of self-worth to haughty levels. Some feel that’s it’s not merely unfortunate when an official or media secretary gives terse information or no comment at all about a request, but that it’s an affront to them and the public they have appointed themselves to serve as the agents thereof. And this exaggerated sensitivity only feeds the feeling that politicians can’t be trusted, but also it certainly doesn’t help that they think they are being prevented from doing their jobs (even as more neutral observers to the adversarial relationship witnessed between journalists and politicians think the former have an unrealistic feeling of entitlement on this account). And for some politicians they are particularly unwilling to cut slack on these issues, given a simple reason: despite pious protestations of neutrality, the media play favorites but those pals seldom include conservative Republican politicians. To be blunt and specific in this case, few of the reporters covering politics in Louisiana voted for Jindal in either of his gubernatorial tries. For many, the only thing they like about his stated policies is his views on this issue of “transparency” (congruent with the above reasons) and so they become really annoyed when they think he’s straying from that which then creates a justification to them that he is as unredeemable as others – but even worse because he already is “wrong” on political ideology. And while the media will never admit it, this ideological difference does affect their coverage (as the editorial page of the Baton Rouge Advocate has not been shy to hint in regards to Jindal). What makes these dynamics more fascinating early on in the Jindal Administration is that it seems to understand this environment. One got the sense from the beginning of his campaign that Jindal knew not only that the media were not going to be his friends, but also that they never would be his friends and probably be implacable enemies short of him renouncing conservatism. Thus he designed a campaign maximally to go around the media that, if he pulled off a big win (defined as there not being a general election runoff), the momentum would fuel his initial year in office. Well, he got his big win and a mandate without depending upon the media as an intermediary. The larger question now is whether he can govern effectively in this mode. While much has changed concerning the dissemination of information in politics, increasing the capacity for politicians to communicate directly with people without the need for the media as an intermediary (or in the establishment of alternative sources of news and opinion typically shunned by the traditional media such as this space), the fact is those that buy ink by the barrel still are going to have disproportionate influence over information dissemination. The situation leads to a quandary on both ends. The Jindal Administration knows the big media are going to be the media and they’re going to be hostile to Jindal, probably more hostile than during any other honest gubernatorial regime in the state’s modern history. However, it will stoke media hostility even more when it refuses to release information that potentially, even likely, will be used by the media to pursue their agenda of thwarting Jindal’s conservative agenda outside of reform. So Jindal must pick his poison regarding media coverage: be criticized for your policies contrary to the media’s or be criticized for not being “transparent” enough for the media’s likings. At the same time, the media are going to be the media. They see the Jindal Administration’s lack of “cooperation” as disrespectful to them and the public they presume to serve, and they are going to dislike much of his agenda, giving the Jindal Administration every incentive to adopt the strategy it seems to have implemented – tolerate and use the media when possible but don’t do them any favors because that is an invitation to get burned. Frankly, I don’t see much of a way to resolve this conflict in the near future, short of one side undergoing an unexpected and unlikely ideological conversion to bring it into congruence with the other. Neither trusts each other, and so media relations during the Jindal Administration may feature rough riding. Long noted by political scientists, the general adversarial relationship between politicians and the media specifically in the case of Jindal and the Louisiana old, especially print, media looks as if their interactions are going to provide an example of this concept on steroids. (If you'd like to have Prof. Sadow's column mailed to you, go to http://www.between-lines.com and click on "Join the mailing list!" on the left-hand side.)