Self-censorship in the press

[Orton's Arm]

Back in 2000, a survey of journalists found that a quarter of them had avoided newsworthy stories because they feared professional consequences.

 

Andrew Kohut, "Self-Censorship: Counting the Ways," Columbia Journalism Review (May/June 2000): 42-43.

[Chilly]

Happens all the time. Its a result of two things:

 

A.) Stories would hurt profits for a variety of reasons.

B.) Stories would hurt their ability to get news from certain sources.

 

Most of the time its A as the reason.

[VABills]

Happens all the time.  Its a result of two things:

 

A.) Stories would hurt profits for a variety of reasons.

B.) Stories would hurt their ability to get news from certain sources.

 

Most of the time its A as the reason.

837821[/snapback]

 

reason c.

 

It would make the pretty boy liberal Clinton look bad.

 

Now that a conservative is in office, all bets are off, and honest reporting is out the window.

 

Right Danny Boy?

[Chilly]

reason c. 

 

It would make the pretty boy liberal Clinton look bad. 

 

Now that a conservative is in office, all bets are off, and honest reporting is out the window. 

 

Right Danny Boy?

837829[/snapback]

 

Yeah thats it, the media censored everything bad about Clinton.

 

(If you look at the scholarly research, you'll find that the majority of the media was negative toward him)

[EC-Bills]

Yeah thats it, the media censored everything bad about Clinton. 

 

(If you look at the scholarly research, you'll find that the majority of the media was negative toward him)

837837[/snapback]

 

Ssshhhh. If you say enough things like that you'll burst his bubble

[Orton's Arm]

Yeah thats it, the media censored everything bad about Clinton. 

 

(If you look at the scholarly research, you'll find that the majority of the media was negative toward him)

837837[/snapback]

That doesn't ring true at all. The majority of the media should have been negative toward him. They weren't.

[Orton's Arm]

reason c. 

 

It would make the pretty boy liberal Clinton look bad. 

 

Now that a conservative is in office, all bets are off, and honest reporting is out the window. 

 

Right Danny Boy?

837829[/snapback]

Reason D: it would have been politically incorrect. Bernard Goldberg had some pretty interesting examples of that in his book about media bias.

[Chilly]

That doesn't ring true at all. The majority of the media should have been negative toward him. They weren't.

837844[/snapback]

 

And I'm assuming you're basing this on your research of the media during Clinton's presidency?

[Orton's Arm]

And I'm assuming you're basing this on your research of the media during Clinton's presidency? 

837851[/snapback]

During the 1992 Democratic primaries, all the reporters traveling with those Democratic candidates supported Clinton. Then you have obvious sources of support, such as the NY Times and the big three networks.

 

During the Lewinsky scandal, CNN.com had news articles about how smart children learn to lie at an earlier age than do other children. They also had articles about how the most attractive male birds will cheat on their spouses.

 

Am I supposed to ignore all this because you've started making vague references to "scholarly research" that allegedly shows a hostile media toward Clinton? Ha! It's probably just some liberal think tank or other to which you're referring. Well, Ann Coulter's done research that shows just the opposite: that the media is more friendly toward liberals than toward conservatives. Well, you say, Coulter is a very partisan source. But how do I know the "scholarly research" to which you're referring isn't equally partisan?

[Chilly]

During the 1992 Democratic primaries, all the reporters traveling with those Democratic candidates supported Clinton. Then you have obvious sources of support, such as the NY Times and the big three networks.

 

During the Lewinsky scandal, CNN.com had news articles about how smart children learn to lie at an earlier age than do other children. They also had articles about how the most attractive male birds will cheat on their spouses.

 

Am I supposed to ignore all this because you've started making vague references to "scholarly research" that allegedly shows a hostile media toward Clinton? Ha! It's probably just some liberal think tank or other to which you're referring. Well, Ann Coulter's done research that shows just the opposite: that the media is more friendly toward liberals than toward conservatives. Well, you say, Coulter is a very partisan source. But how do I know the "scholarly research" to which you're referring isn't equally partisan?

837873[/snapback]

 

You're now using anecdotal evidence to attempt to prove that this is true?

 

I would start by reading Sparrow and Kerbel's research on the issue.

[Bungee Jumper]

You're now using anecdotal evidence to attempt to prove that this is true? 

 

I would start by reading Sparrow and Kerbel's research on the issue.

837886[/snapback]

 

Anecdotal ornithological evidence, no less.

[VABills]

Anecdotal ornithological evidence, no less. 

837896[/snapback]

What do birds have to do with it?

 

ornithology

One entry found for ornithology.

 

 

Main Entry: or·ni·thol·o·gy

Pronunciation: "or-n&-'thä-l&-jE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -gies

Etymology: New Latin ornithologia, from ornith- + -logia -logy

1 : a treatise on ornithology

2 : a branch of zoology dealing with birds

- or·ni·tho·log·i·cal /-th&-'lä-ji-k&l/ also or·ni·tho·log·ic /-jik/ adjective

- or·ni·tho·log·i·cal·ly /-ji-k(&-)lE/ adverb

- or·ni·thol·o·gist /-'thä-l&-jist/ noun

[Bungee Jumper]

What do birds have to do with it? 

 

837913[/snapback]

 

Nothing. Which makes me wonder why HA said "They also had articles about how the most attractive male birds will cheat on their spouses." when trying to demonstrate that CNN supported Clinton in Monicagate.

 

Actually, I'm not really wondering. I think we all know.

[Orton's Arm]

Nothing.  Which makes me wonder why HA said "They also had articles about how the most attractive male birds will cheat on their spouses." when trying to demonstrate that CNN supported Clinton in Monicagate.

 

Actually, I'm not really wondering.  I think we all know. 

837916[/snapback]

Why did I say it? Because I remember reading those articles, and thinking their intent was pretty transparent.

[Chilly]

Nothing.  Which makes me wonder why HA said "They also had articles about how the most attractive male birds will cheat on their spouses." when trying to demonstrate that CNN supported Clinton in Monicagate.

 

Actually, I'm not really wondering.  I think we all know. 

837916[/snapback]

 

Of course, it also depends on what you call "media coverage" (CNN vs NY Times), whether you include editorials or not, and what time period of the Clinton administration that you are looking at.

 

Its easy to manipulate the data based upon what criteria you are looking at.

 

Generally, the research shows that self-censorship occurs for the two reasons above: A.) For money, or B.) in order to protect whoever is in power as to not alienate them as a source.

 

As they get tons of news from the Administration and take their word on it for a multitude of reasons (goodbye investigative journalism), this causes them to invoke in reason B.

 

Reason A occurs a helluva lot more in the that they tend to not publish negative information about their advertisers, supporters, the media, and company interests.

 

When the "scandal" thats selling newspapers (such as the whole Clinton blow job bull sh-- or Whitewater) is from that source, they don't censor themselves and start being attack dogs.

 

Its a balance for them between self-censorship and printing stuff that is negative toward the person in power (aka one fo their major sources).

 

Case in point: NY Times' news stories in the lead up to the Iraq war.

 

The reason why I say that the majority of Clinton news coverage was negative was that the media was playing as the attack dogs in this one by helping the Republicans drum up a scandal that shouldn't have been news in order to sell papers.

[Orton's Arm]

The reason why I say that the majority of Clinton news coverage was negative was that the media was playing as the attack dogs in this one by helping the Republicans drum up a scandal that shouldn't have been news in order to sell papers.

I'd argue the Lewinsky scandal should have been news, because a man who is dishonest towards his wife is more likely to be dishonst toward his nation. In any case, Clinton used his influence to get Lewinsky a good job elsewhere. I have the feeling it's illegal to give women career rewards in exchange for sexual favors. At very least it's a bad example for everyone else.

 

I agree though the media covered the scandal because of its sensationalism, and not because of any deeper concern for the moral issues involved.

 

I felt that the Whitewater affair represented a far graver abuse of power than did the help Clinton provided Lewinsky. However, the Whitewater affair didn't involve sex or violence or anything. It was boring, and didn't get the attention it should have from the media.

[Chilly]

I felt that the Whitewater affair represented a far graver abuse of power than did the help Clinton provided Lewinsky. However, the Whitewater affair didn't involve sex or violence or anything. It was boring, and didn't get the attention it should have from the media.

838224[/snapback]

 

Just like most other businesses, follow the money.

[Bungee Jumper]

Why did I say it? Because I remember reading those articles, and thinking their intent was pretty transparent.

838158[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I can see why you'd think an ornithology article was editorializing.

 

I can't seey why an ornithology article would be editorializing, mind you...but I can see why you'd think so.

[Bungee Jumper]

I felt that the Whitewater affair represented a far graver abuse of power than did the help Clinton provided Lewinsky. However, the Whitewater affair didn't involve sex or violence or anything. It was boring, and didn't get the attention it should have from the media.

838224[/snapback]

 

Let's completely ignore that they were the same thing.

[Orton's Arm]

Yeah, I can see why you'd think an ornithology article was editorializing.

 

I can't seey why an ornithology article would be editorializing, mind you...but I can see why you'd think so.

838249[/snapback]

You tend to hit people over the head with a hammer. As such, I can see how you wouldn't understand how other people are able to use more subtle, yet sometimes more effective, ways of communicating their points.