Smarter than they Think

The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers — apart from scaring the hell out of editors — is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major segment of American society is thinking.

It also guarantees that opinion writers and editors alike will shape views to avoid upsetting colleagues, which means that instead of hearing what our differences are and how we might address those issues, newspaper readers will instead be presented with page after page of people professing to agree with one another. That’s not agitation, that’s misinformation.

Matt Taibbi

Such a good observation by Matt Taibbi in his June 2020 piece, The American Press is Destroying Itself. We find that aggressive censorship through these on-line pillories, apologies, and firings leads to a timidity in our press. One must only wonder the things on which we’ve missed out because of it.  Maybe something as simple as honest debate. Because what do you get when people are afraid to even voice thoughts or concerns about something – to ask honest questions?

From a “free” press, I’m sure it’s not a whole lot. And that’s not good.

Personally, I find my positions on issues clarified by thoughtful back and forth. It should bother people that journalists are quite probably be holding back now — not asking the tough questions on behalf of their readers — because they’re afraid of the mob. And even more so, that the mob is coming from inside the media organizations themselves.

Really, one is left questioning where we can turn for meaningful discussions on issues of importance. It doesn’t look like anything of substance will be coming from the opinion pages of the New York Times (although I’m a subscriber and read them regularly). Rather than openly debate, rebut, or clarify a piece by Senator Tom Cotton (mentioned in the Taibbi piece), they went after and fired the editor who published it — replacing him with someone who immediately demonstrated a most un-journalistic position by giving newsroom workers the chance to voice their discomfort with any writings that come through the page.

And maybe this sounds good — someone more “sensitive” to the feelings of others in the newsroom. But of course it isn’t. We shouldn’t want sensitive people in the newsroom.  We should want people who are going to be tough going after the story. Going after the truth. Asking hard and uncomfortable questions. We all lose if reporters don’t — not just in gaining the truth, but also in our confidence that what we read isn’t being overly biased by the organizations publishing it.

In a bittersweet irony, the very internet that so many want to control as a source of “misinformation” is the very same place we can find a wider range of thoughtful work. It was good that we used to be able to count on our major news organs to proctor that information at one time in our lives — and even then, we understood the “leanings” of those organizations so we could approach them with the appropriate amount of caution and understanding. But now in the age where these same organizations are pegged as intentional and malicious purveyors of discord (even Rolling Stone — that hot bed of right-wing extremism — called out Zucker and CNN for manipulating the news (and good for them)), we must oftentimes strike out on our own to find anyone worth listening to or reading.

To do that, we actually have to think for ourselves. We have to be able to look at things critically and weed out the garbage. We have to risk being uncomfortable. Can we do that? Hey, maybe we’re smarter than they think.