“Headless body in topless bar.” According to Knowlton Nash, that lurid headline from the New York Post symbolizes the dismal future of journalism. Newspapers, television, and radio are abandoning whatever commitment they had to educating citizens and are embracing crime, sex, and anything else that might grab attention in the single-minded pursuit of ratings and profits. It’s a degrading trend, says Nash in Trivia Pursuit, that robs journalists of self-respect and deprives citizens of the real information they need to make democracy work.

This is not an original lament. But it’s a case that Nash makes well – and that he’s perfectly positioned to make. As anchor of The National, Nash showed that journalism could be different. He didn’t attract viewers with empty good looks (he resembles a genial owl) or with flash and trash, but with his general air of decency and his obvious commitment to explaining significant political and economic events for the average Canadian. Nash’s words also carry the weight of more than half a century’s experience in print and broadcast journalism. He ranges widely through history in the book, but focuses on the changes he’s seen himself, explaining the causes and effects of the rise of TV, the golden age of the networks, the multiplication of channels, the dumbing down of newspapers, and the emergence of the Internet. He’s consistently clear and informative, and brings the subject alive with personal anecdotes about his early days in the business and his encounters with such political and media figures as Kennedy, Diefenbaker, Mulroney, Walter Winchell, and Walter Cronkite.

Nash concedes that journalism has always had tawdry elements, but argues persuasively that today’s fevered competition for advertising dollars has driven it to new lows. However, he’s not fatalistic. He writes that stricter codes of conduct, better training for journalists, and increased public monitoring could all help to revive responsible journalism. Those may be good ideas, but it’s hard to imagine the media – at least the private media – changing without strong economic motives as well. In the absence of such motives, journalists could do worse than read this book and emulate Nash’s own deep commitment to journalism that serves the public interest.