Having spent most of the last five years in the world of journalism, I am appalled by this article in the New York Times, which highlights yet another instance of the failure of journalism and the zeal of politicians to control the news.
The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.
They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.
Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.
The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.
The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.
And “journalists” agree to this because, if they don’t, they won’t get an interview with anyone that matters. And instead of doing real journalism in response, they immediately transform themselves into cute little lapdogs — and roll over and play dead. Because it’s all about access.
Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.
The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a “top Democrat” or a “Republican strategist.”
It is a double-edged sword for journalists, who are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews.
As Glenn Greenwald so aptly puts it, this makes them stenographers rather than journalists.
11 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Jeremy Shaffer
July 20, 2012 at 10:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even if that ended up with them not having access, that should hardly stop a journalist. If it ends up that there is some nuance that is missed because the direct source refused to talk without editing power, too bad for them. It seems to me that the politicians, their campaigns and so forth need the journalist far more than the other way around.
Of course, my idea of jouranlism could be clouded by my reading of comic book characters like Lois Lane.
Raging Bee
July 20, 2012 at 10:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can hardly blame politicians for at least trying to control the message — that’s part of their job, innit?
Instead, ALL of the blame rests with the media establishment who go along with the demands, with no significant pushback. If they all stopped being such obedient stenographers, would the politicians suddenly stop granting interviews? Of course not — they’d still NEED access to the media to get their messages across.
And even if a journalist couldn’t interview a politician, he/she could still just go out and report facts on the ground, from the ground. Why are they crying so piteously about the price they pay for “access?” Because such beats are both easier and cheaper than real investigative journalism.
Journalists aren’t prevented from doing their job; they’re CHOOSING not to do it, and lazily blaming politicians — and, in the process, avoiding the real issues while pretending to be “evenhanded” and “nonpartisan.”
Dennis N
July 20, 2012 at 10:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sadly, this is coming from the most respectable national newspaper, the “best” – where “best” means refusing to use the word “torture” to describe actual torture, whose contributors cheer-leaded for the Iraq War, and which employs David Brooks and Ross Douthat.
Jordan Genso
July 20, 2012 at 10:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Slightly off topic, but I want to recommend the show “The Newsroom” on HBO, as it’s about a TV news crew who recognize how flawed the media currently is, so they try to make their show a paragon of excellence for others to follow.
There’s been four episodes so far, and they’ve been very good.
slc1
July 20, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Dennis N
Of course, their not so friendly competitors at the Washington Post employ fascist goat fuckers like Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, and Mark Thiessen.
Dennis N
July 20, 2012 at 11:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc, indeed, my point being that the NYT is the best we have, and it still fails repeatedly to upholds its ethics, that is how poor modern national journalism is.
d cwilson
July 20, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And that’s the problem. Everyone in the media is so focused on scooping the competition that can’t together a united front. Unless the get together and formed a united front on this issue, things will never change.
Things are even worse with TV news, where politicians have the luxury of choosing to only speak to hosts that are sympathetic to their candidacy. That’s why we never see moments like George H. W. Bush snapping at Dan Rather any more.
Gregory in Seattle
July 20, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think stenographers is too generous: a stenographer takes things down verbatim, gaffes and all. I think the word you want is “mouthpieces.”
Ben P
July 20, 2012 at 11:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, I (cynically) wonder if this isn’t the norm rather than the exception.
The idea of independent investigative journalism is largely a 20th century invention. Historically virtually all journalists were partisan actors, either paid by the powers that be to support their agenda or populists speaking truth to unpopular powers that be. The idea of “infotainment” is also much older than you would suspect.
While I agree that a class of independent investigative journalists is a good thing, I do not know how you can sustain them if they can’t attract an audience of their own benefit. If not enough people want to watch pure investigative journalism for it to sustain itself, there’s not much that can be done.
I do have some hope for the internet in this regard. While the internet’s rise has greatly weakened the ability of traditional media to bundle and cross-subsidize content, it’s given rise to the ability of niche content providers that couldn’t have had access to their audiences before. As the market matures I have some hope that it will generate enough income for many types of media to develop their own niche markets and followings.
For example, the policy heavy talk shows have such a marginal audience they get shoved to sunday morning on news channels, but their viewership could easily sustain a leaner online operation. The problem is today many politicians would never deign to appear on a podcast or online only show. In the future I think that may change.
Gretchen
July 20, 2012 at 2:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You mean the failure of modern American journalism. The UK has us firmly beat in this regard– their journalists are merciless to politicians, and should be exemplars for ours.
John Phillips, FCD
July 21, 2012 at 2:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen, if only. What you largely have in the UK today is the political interview as spectator sport. Might be fun to watch, but rarely will you learn anything. There are exceptions, but they are very rare and Jeremy Paxman and his ‘descendents’ are not among them. As for stenographer or mouthpiece reporters, we have our fair share of them as well.