In nearly four years that I've worked at Media Matters, the excuse I've heard most often from reporters and other media types when their work is called into questions is: “look, I get attacked from the right and the left, I must be doing something right.”

Yes, the excuse is worryingly simplistic. The ridiculous assumption being that if a story or a reporter's work in general is getting attacked from both sides of the political spectrum than those attacks must not be valid.

Over on PBS' Media Shift Ideas Lab blog, Scott Rosenberg looks at the inability of journalists to handle criticism from the public. In the must read piece, Rosenberg writes:

Why do so many journalists find it so hard to handle public criticism? If you're an athlete, you're used to it. If you're an artist, critics will regularly take you down. If you are in government, the pundits and now the bloggers will show no mercy. If you're in business, the market will punish you.

In all these cases, the seasoned professional learns to deal with it. But over and over today, we encounter the sorry spectacle of distinguished reporters losing it when their work is publicly attacked -- or columnists sneering at the feedback they get in poorly moderated web comments.

Clark Hoyt recently concluded his tenure as the New York Times' “public editor” (a.k.a. ombudsman) with a farewell column that described the reactions of Times journalists to his work. It seems the process of being critiqued in public in their own paper continues to be alienating and dispiriting to them. Journalists typically, and rightly, see themselves as bearers of public accountability -- holding the feet of government officials, business leaders and other public figures to the fire of their inquiries. Yet, remarkably, a surprising number of journalists still find it hard to accept being held to account themselves.

Rosenberg concludes the issue of skittishness around being held publicly accountable is one of “culture,” something younger journalists are better prepared to handle.

...many individual journalists find themselves at sea when called upon to explain mistakes, defend choices and engage in discussions with their readers and critics. Nothing in their professional lives has prepared them for this. In fact, a lot of their professional training explicitly taught them that all of this was dangerous, unprofessional, bad. They grew up thinking -- and some still think -- that the professional thing to do, when questioned in public, is (a) don't respond at all; (b) respond with “no comment -- we stand by our story”; or if things get really bad © your editor will do the talking.

Unfortunately, this means that the typical blogger has more experience dealing with criticism -- measuring a reasonable response, managing trolls and restraining the urge to flame -- than the typical newsroom journalist. That, I think, is why we regularly see the kind of journalist freakout that the New York Times' James Risen visited upon us (and very quickly apologized for).

Perhaps Rosenberg is right -- younger journalists are a bit different. For one thing, many now blog for their supper while also churning out full-length pieces of original journalism. A big difference from their elders who have for years disparaged blogging as something done by geeks wearing pajamas in their parents' basements.

The times they are-a-changin' and for any media entity to survive, there must be a good amount of honest give and take with the public.