We keep hearing from the punditocracy that President Trump’s conflict with the news media is an existential threat to freedom of the press. I’m not buying it.
Conflict between government and the press is rooted in American history. No one got the vapors when Thomas Jefferson said: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.” No one called for General William T. Sherman’s resignation when he threatened to shoot a reporter. That’s because for most of our history newspapers were intensely political and drew much of their financial support from political parties.
General Sherman’s threat to execute a reporter during the Civil War was not without justification. Newspapers often published troop movements and battle preparations gleaned from “leakers” on military staffs. (Sound familiar?) A court-martial banished the reporter from the army but, to Sherman’s disappointment, declined to impose the death penalty.
The objectivity we have taken for granted in journalism did not arise until the early 20thCentury. Newspapers broke with political parties to become corporate enterprises that relied on mass circulation and advertising. The Progressive reform movement fought political corruption and placed journalism above the political fray. Schools of journalism were organized to make journalism a profession.
The novel idea of professional ethics took longer to gain traction. The “yellow journalism” that flourished in the late 19thCentury continued to sell newspapers with sensational headlines and spurious stories: that era’s click-bait. The 1928 play by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, The Front Page, fueled the reputation of hard-drinking journalists willing to cut corners for a scoop.
The profession I joined in 1960 as a journalism student was striving to live down its dodgy heritage by embracing objectivity as a kind of religion. Lectures at the Medill School of Journalism portrayed our occupation as a higher calling bound by professional ethics. Instructors who had day jobs at Chicago newspapers conducted a boot camp of reporting and newswriting that force-fed impartiality and rigorous fact checking. Another famous training ground in those days was the City News Bureau of Chicago, whose motto was: If your mother says she loves you, check it out.
Yet journalists still debated whether journalism was a profession or a trade. Some editors remained skeptical about hiring journalism school graduates. Editor & Publisher, the industry publication, had help-wanted ads like: Copy editor wanted. Must be sober.
In the late 1970s I briefly joined the Chicago Press Veterans Association, many of whose members were survivors of the bad old days: irreverent geriatrics with really strong livers. At the association’s annual banquet, servers took your drink order when you walked in and brought TWO drinks. The stories they told sounded more like The Front Page than what I had learned in journalism school.
Objectivity finally prevailed. In the last half of the 20thCentury big-city newspapers, lots of them, established a reputation for solid reporting and TV networks followed suit. Investigative reporters carried on the tradition of the progressive muckrakers. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America. Presidents and the public treated the news media with respect because journalists had earned it.
The many reporters I encountered during my public relations career in Chicago asked tough questions but were straight shooters with no agenda. Matching wits with them was a challenge. On the rare occasions when they had time for lunch, they bought their own as a matter of ethics.
But objectivity is fragile. Reporting is a cascade of subjective decisions: what the story is about, whom to interview, which facts to include and which to omit, which quotes to use. Editors must decide what to cover and what to ignore. Even when a reporter tries to cover both sides of an issue fairly – I used to count lines in my stories to make sure I had the balance right – human nature is bound to get in the way.
The Washington Post’s investigative coverage of the Watergate scandal in 1972 was the high point of objective journalism and may have precipitated its eventual decline. It inspired a generation of young people to enter journalism who were motivated by the opportunity to bring down the powerful but ignored the painstaking research and rigorous fact-checking that made it possible. And it intensified the liberal bias that had begun during the Vietnam War.
At first we didn’t notice the decline in objectivity. CNN established cable TV news as a potent force with its worldwide network of reporters in the early 1990s. But the economics of the news business were changing. The decline of print advertising gutted newspapers. Increasing competition and tight budgets prompted TV newsrooms to replace field reporters with studio pundit panels. We began to see less reporting and more “analysis.”
National news organizations that no longer had bureaus in Berlin and Boise increasingly focused on Washington and New York with growing co-dependence between media and government. A surprising number of journalists have relatives and spouses who are government officials or political operatives: like the president of CBS News, whose brother is Obama staffer Ben Rhodes. People move between jobs in the media and government in the same revolving-door fashion as Congressmen and lobbyists.
Media bias gradually became more noticeable. By 2009, 60% of Americans believed the news media were politically biased and 63% thought news stories often were inaccurate. National media organizations openly favored President Obama, both in favorable coverage of the administration and lack of curiosity about its failings. Much of the investigative reporting the news media used to do has shifted to nonprofit organizations such as ProPublica, The Intercept and Judicial Watch.
There’s still a lot of solid journalism going on. Most local news coverage is relatively unbiased, and the proliferation of online news outlets gives discriminating readers plenty of opportunities to get all the news. But it’s easier to get accurate news about your local community than about the nation as a whole.
Donald Trump’s election completed the politicization of national news organizations. The widespread announcements that news organizations did not intend to “normalize” Trump were a declaration that those newsrooms will no longer apply the principles of objective journalism and will function as an opposition party instead.
And they are doing so. Coverage of Trump by the traditional news organizations has been overwhelmingly negative (though a plurality of Democrats say media coverage is not critical enough). Media story selection is striking, with Stormy Daniels getting dramatically more TV coverage than the economy or healthcare.
I don’t think my journalism professors would recognize CNN’s Jim Acosta or April Ryan as reporters: Their speeches at White House news conferences make it abundantly clear that they are advocates with an agenda. In a throwback to the yellow journalism era, we are seeing more news stories based on anonymous leaks, speculation and rumors (Where’s Melania?) that prove to be inaccurate. We also are seeing deliberate deception such as the Time Magazine cover featuring an immigrant child who was NOT separated from her mother. Reporters are irate that the White House is not treating them like Walter Cronkite, but they can’t have it both ways.
So when President Trump responds to media abuse in kind, that’s not an assault on press freedom. It’s an appropriate way to treat mud-slinging political opposition, just as it was through most of American history. The republic will survive: General Sherman was not allowed to shoot a reporter and Trump won’t either.
The rise and fall of objective journalism
We keep hearing from the punditocracy that President Trump’s conflict with the news media is an existential threat to freedom of the press. I’m not buying it.
Conflict between government and the press is rooted in American history. No one got the vapors when Thomas Jefferson said: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.” No one called for General William T. Sherman’s resignation when he threatened to shoot a reporter. That’s because for most of our history newspapers were intensely political and drew much of their financial support from political parties.
The objectivity we have taken for granted in journalism did not arise until the early 20thCentury. Newspapers broke with political parties to become corporate enterprises that relied on mass circulation and advertising. The Progressive reform movement fought political corruption and placed journalism above the political fray. Schools of journalism were organized to make journalism a profession.
The profession I joined in 1960 as a journalism student was striving to live down its dodgy heritage by embracing objectivity as a kind of religion. Lectures at the Medill School of Journalism portrayed our occupation as a higher calling bound by professional ethics. Instructors who had day jobs at Chicago newspapers conducted a boot camp of reporting and newswriting that force-fed impartiality and rigorous fact checking. Another famous training ground in those days was the City News Bureau of Chicago, whose motto was: If your mother says she loves you, check it out.
Yet journalists still debated whether journalism was a profession or a trade. Some editors remained skeptical about hiring journalism school graduates. Editor & Publisher, the industry publication, had help-wanted ads like: Copy editor wanted. Must be sober.
In the late 1970s I briefly joined the Chicago Press Veterans Association, many of whose members were survivors of the bad old days: irreverent geriatrics with really strong livers. At the association’s annual banquet, servers took your drink order when you walked in and brought TWO drinks. The stories they told sounded more like The Front Page than what I had learned in journalism school.
The many reporters I encountered during my public relations career in Chicago asked tough questions but were straight shooters with no agenda. Matching wits with them was a challenge. On the rare occasions when they had time for lunch, they bought their own as a matter of ethics.
But objectivity is fragile. Reporting is a cascade of subjective decisions: what the story is about, whom to interview, which facts to include and which to omit, which quotes to use. Editors must decide what to cover and what to ignore. Even when a reporter tries to cover both sides of an issue fairly – I used to count lines in my stories to make sure I had the balance right – human nature is bound to get in the way.
The Washington Post’s investigative coverage of the Watergate scandal in 1972 was the high point of objective journalism and may have precipitated its eventual decline. It inspired a generation of young people to enter journalism who were motivated by the opportunity to bring down the powerful but ignored the painstaking research and rigorous fact-checking that made it possible. And it intensified the liberal bias that had begun during the Vietnam War.
At first we didn’t notice the decline in objectivity. CNN established cable TV news as a potent force with its worldwide network of reporters in the early 1990s. But the economics of the news business were changing. The decline of print advertising gutted newspapers. Increasing competition and tight budgets prompted TV newsrooms to replace field reporters with studio pundit panels. We began to see less reporting and more “analysis.”
National news organizations that no longer had bureaus in Berlin and Boise increasingly focused on Washington and New York with growing co-dependence between media and government. A surprising number of journalists have relatives and spouses who are government officials or political operatives: like the president of CBS News, whose brother is Obama staffer Ben Rhodes. People move between jobs in the media and government in the same revolving-door fashion as Congressmen and lobbyists.
Media bias gradually became more noticeable. By 2009, 60% of Americans believed the news media were politically biased and 63% thought news stories often were inaccurate. National media organizations openly favored President Obama, both in favorable coverage of the administration and lack of curiosity about its failings. Much of the investigative reporting the news media used to do has shifted to nonprofit organizations such as ProPublica, The Intercept and Judicial Watch.
There’s still a lot of solid journalism going on. Most local news coverage is relatively unbiased, and the proliferation of online news outlets gives discriminating readers plenty of opportunities to get all the news. But it’s easier to get accurate news about your local community than about the nation as a whole.
Donald Trump’s election completed the politicization of national news organizations. The widespread announcements that news organizations did not intend to “normalize” Trump were a declaration that those newsrooms will no longer apply the principles of objective journalism and will function as an opposition party instead.
And they are doing so. Coverage of Trump by the traditional news organizations has been overwhelmingly negative (though a plurality of Democrats say media coverage is not critical enough). Media story selection is striking, with Stormy Daniels getting dramatically more TV coverage than the economy or healthcare.
So when President Trump responds to media abuse in kind, that’s not an assault on press freedom. It’s an appropriate way to treat mud-slinging political opposition, just as it was through most of American history. The republic will survive: General Sherman was not allowed to shoot a reporter and Trump won’t either.
Share this: