America’s Pusillanimous Press
Let us now access the state of the free press in this land of ... well, of press freedom. The assessment? Pathetic. Not because of any government clampdown, but because of increasing press pusillanimity.
In recent years, newspaper reporting had already been severely weakened by drastic cutbacks in newsrooms (including the near-abandonment of hard-nosed investigative reporting by conglomerate CEOs and bean-counters more interested in upping the corporate stock price than in providing journalistic exposes). But the latest decline comes from newsroom managers and staff who've chosen to compromise on a core aspect of good reporting: conducting untainted, straightforward interviews.
Those in charge of running major newspapers and blogs these days have gone all wonky on their basic job of getting public and corporate figures to provide honest, informative answers to important who-what-when-where-and-why questions that inform the citizenry.
The compromise they've made is a pernicious practice called "quote approval." This began with PR flacks for public officials and political candidates demanding that reporters agree — as a price of being granted an interview — to submit any quotes they intend to use from the interview to the interviewee's staff for approval. Thus, when Mr. Big blurts out something shocking, stupid or actually newsworthy, Mr. Big's staff of bowdlerizers can tidy it up or just erase it. The comment might've been news, but — zzzzzzztt — it's gone, as though it were never uttered.
It's not surprising that today's media-sensitive political figures (including Barack Obama and Mitt Romney) would demand this extraordinary right to censor what they themselves said, but it's utterly despicable that media bosses and reporters have so gutlessly caved in to the demand. It reduces reporters from hard-nosed diggers to brown-nosed beggars, and it makes a mockery of our democracy's need for a free press. Yet many of America's major publications — from Bloomberg News to The New York Times — have meekly surrendered to this restraint.
And now, corporate executives have realized that, hey, we can emasculate the press, too! Thus, Wall Street barons, Silicon Valley hotshots and even the bosses of media conglomerates are demanding (and getting) quote approval for stories about their operations.
David Carr, the media columnist for The New York Times, admits that he's also succumbed to these demands: "Most of the time," he wrote in a Sept. 17 column about the insidious giveaway of journalistic control, "I push back, but if it's (a quote) I feel I absolutely need, I start negotiating."
Of course, it's his independence and journalistic integrity that he's bargaining away — a troubling fact that Carr acknowledged at the end of his column: "Inch by inch, story by story, deal by deal, we are giving away our right to ask a simple question and expect a simple answer, one that can't be taken back."
As an exasperated Casey Stengel asked about the bumbling 1962 New York Mets baseball team he was managing, "Can't anybody here play this game?"
Yes. Young journalists can — and they are. Editors of student papers are beginning to reassert reportorial ethics by rebelling against the absurdity of quote approval. The editors of the Harvard Crimson student newspaper, for example, declared in "A Letter to Our Readers" on Sept. 4 that they will no longer submit quotations by Harvard honchos back to them for cleansing.
Calling the shift a matter of trust with readers, the editors rightly noted that quote approval defeats the ability of their reporters "to capture and channel the forthright, honest words of Harvard's decision-makers to all those who might be affected. It's time for these constrained interviews to come to an end."
Likewise, the editor of Princeton University's student paper has halted the use of email interviews favored by chary school officials who seek to barricade themselves from rigorous reporting. The prevalence of email-only responses, he wrote, produces "stilted, manicured quotes that often hide any real meaning."
Bingo! Now, if only some of this youthful integrity and journalistic gutsiness would rub off on the poltroonery of America's press elders.
CONNECT














8 comments on "America’s Pusillanimous Press "
September 29, 2012 6:57am
I've been posting on the Huffington Post for a few years. On an article called Ahmajinidad Calls For A New World Order I posted this YouTube video entitled BREAKING: Israeli Lobbyist Calls For False Flag To Start Iran War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVEYk98xsSQ.
Despite my repeated attempts to get this onto the forum my comment was shut down.
This is a comment that could potentially cause enough outrage amoung Americans that they insist on the denial of support for Israel and its wars of aggression. Please make this video viral. Perhaps we can make peace and stop another unnecessary war.
September 27, 2012 7:19pm
Few people know that Thomas Jefferson demanded quote approval!
He once told a reporter:
"I think there are ten classes of people, ranging from complete freaking idiots at the bottom to annoying, boring jerks at the top. But, hey, it's ok with me if they say whatever stupid shit they want."
After seeing his words in text, he demanded the interviewer change it to, "I think it's self-evident that all men are created equal."
September 27, 2012 8:30am
I've become increasingly aghast at what passes for news these days - who's competing on Dancing with the Stars, which celebrities have gone into rehab, etc. This article pretty much explains why such drivel is considered news in this country & consequently why the average IQ of Americans seems to be dropping. Drivel is all that's safe to report! And all that's available!
Several years ago, my daughter told me she gets her news about world & American events through the BBC. Since then, we've watched their news casts & agree that the BBC accounts are more factual & probing than anything that can be found on ABC, CBS, or NBC, probably because BBC reporters aren't afraid to ask straightforward questions.
September 26, 2012 8:03pm
Sounds like there might be a market for an untainted news source. I only use mainsteram media for local news, anything else will cause immediate nausea.
I wonder how much of this immasculation is top down within the media giants?
Write the way management see's fit or start your own news outlet.
September 26, 2012 4:30pm
While we may have witnessed some decline in reportage over the past few decades, the idea of "quote approval" is far over any line that would distinguish a "news" operation from a propaganda operation. No media that would allow such a violation of ethics can rightfully claim to be a "news" outlet. How does this sort of raw capitulation distinguish the New York Times from say.... Pravda or any of the Nazi owned and operated propaganda organs or any of the so called media in The People's Republic of China? Answer; It doesn't. It makes them not just ethically the same, it makes them precisely the same.
September 26, 2012 12:18pm
It's physically sickening to read that a New York Times *media* columnist is willing to play such a despicable game. In my entire career of editing comparatively fluffy special interest magazines, and I have never, EVER allowed quote approval—or any kind of approval of anything. Nobody but the people I've hired ever see a word of what appears in my magazine before the reader sees it. Anything short of that is not real journalism; it's well disguised PR. I hope to Christ the actual reporters and editors at the Times think more clearly on this subject than does David Carr--whose byline, by the way, I no longer trust.
September 26, 2012 11:55am
Like Grandma always said, "If you don't want to put your foot in your mouth, Don't open it!" And that's a Grandma approved quote! And as Grandpa would always says to Grandma, "Say what you mean, and mean what you say!", but I think that's just because he could never figure her out.
September 26, 2012 10:51am
A free and unfettered press is absolutely vital to any "functioning" Democracy. It's plainly obvious this country does not have this essential mechanism any longer. The mass media is focused on ratings and sales which lead to our present God: profit. If "infotainment" achieves the desired results then that's what we will continue to get instead of "actual" news that would give citizens facts they could legitimately put to use. Goebbels would be most impressed with the substitution of propaganda vs. truth. Orwell would not be surprised. In essence, interviewees are simply writing their own articles. "Hi, I'm Senator Subterfuge and I approved this message." We're toast.