Today's Paper Latest Elections Coronavirus 🔵 Covid Classroom Cooking Families Core values Story ideas iPad Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles Archive

The New York Times reports that it and other leading national news organizations now routinely type quotes from their interviews with top officials of the presidential campaigns, then submit these texts to the campaigns.

Then they publish the attributed quotes, if at all, only in the edited forms in which the campaigns return them.

Reporters get access to on-the-record information from highly placed sources. Campaign honchos get assurances they can escape embarrassment for something they said but wish they hadn’t.

So let us today ponder the demise of legendary American journalism.

Let us behold the rise in its place of official-speak and its obliging stenography.

Let us do that with quaintly independent commentary.

Here is the historic purpose and essence of political journalism as practiced by a constitutionally empowered free press in a democratic republic: It has been to pursue important public truths independently, meaning outside the self-serving official channels.

It has been to serve the reader and voter, not the newsmaker.

The goal of higher-quality political journalism has been to enrich the narrative with flavorful and revelatory detail.

Nothing is more flavorful or revelatory—more real—than spontaneity. That means, among other things, the instinctive utterances that a politician or political operative might let slip.

Ideally, all of this is supposed to take place as an ongoing struggle between politicians trying to control their messages and the independent journalists trying to pry out more objective and fully contextual messages.

The alleged misquote, the charge that a comment was “taken out of context,” the angling for an ambush interview—these are proud and glorious staples of the struggle.

There is no manual, nor is there any binding code of professional conduct. Journalism isn’t a profession. It’s a constitutional exercise. Or it used to be.

In recent decades a growing premium has been placed in official Washington on “access.” That refers to the ability of reporters to penetrate the ever-deepening government fortress and speak with a government official.

It is as if the direct interaction is something so rarefied as to approximate an audience with the pope.

Routinely, government officials conduct “briefings” for obliging gaggles of reporters who have agreed en masse not to quote the taxpayer employee by name.

Reporters need to know what the official knows, or some of what the official knows, so they can impart that information generally. The official thinks he needs to be cloaked in anonymity in order to speak with a semblance of freedom, meaning fact and truth.

But this latest development takes the nation’s politics and media into new territory where official filtering is the accepted practice.

It is a new territory where the power of information is systematically transferred from those who formerly were independent—indeed a “fourth estate”—to those wholly official, wholly partisan and wholly possessed of vested interests.

It is a new territory in which the person whom the reporter is interviewing also will function as the reporter’s editor.

It is a new territory in which words placed between quotation marks in the newspaper need not be the actual words spoken by the person to whom the quote is attributed.

So it’s a lie.

The readers and voters get less spontaneity, less detail, less flavor, a sterilized narrative and a lesser increment of fact and truth with which to make democracy’s vital decisions.

It’s as if 60 Minutes sent the digital recording of its on-camera interview with a news subject to that news subject with a note saying, “Look this over and put on the cutting-room floor anything you don’t want us to show you saying.”

It’s the same thing, almost precisely.

It’s a free press that is voluntarily handing over its liberty.

It needs to stop.

It is one thing, and an entirely different and valuable thing, for political reporters to develop good sources and avail themselves of inside information while protecting those sources and finding a way to impart the inside information generally and credibly.

But to leverage an on-the-record interview with a campaign manager only by ceding real spontaneous truth to the whitewashing of that campaign manager—on the premise that the reporter couldn’t have gotten anything at all, filtered or unfiltered, otherwise—amounts to journalistic prostitution.

It surely seldom if ever produces information valuable enough to be deemed remotely worthy of the compromise.

We’re better off not knowing the brilliant insights of that campaign manager than letting him—or anybody—write his own news.

Or we could just put Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s bylines on the articles about them.

John Brummett is a regular columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at and read his blog at


Sponsor Content

Archived Comments

  • KingofFishback
    July 18, 2012 at 7:54 a.m.

    Good column. Another aspect of "goodbye journalism" is the failure to ask follow up questions to explore an issue that is being discussed. For example, I've heard numerous interviews about "job creators" with all answers taken at face value, as if they were true. Perhaps a subject for a future column?

  • RonalFos
    July 18, 2012 at 8:10 a.m.

    Real, professional journalism is needed more than ever now. To hear that this is the path newspapers are heading down is really disheartening.

  • Gnusman48
    July 18, 2012 at 8:45 a.m.

    It should be noted that it isn't necessarily newspapers that have adopted this policy. It is news organizations, by and large, like Bloomberg that have. The Associated Press does not embrace this approach. It is NOT journalism. It's "homerism" of the worst kind, and it is offensive to any real journalist. The practice hurts the credibility of all news gatherers, and I am in total agreement that it MUST stop. You cannot afflict the comfortable by allowing them to choose the words you use.

  • LevitiCuss
    July 18, 2012 at 9 a.m.

    I remember a time when the Kardashians weren't newsworthy. Journalism has also become just another venue for product placement.

  • NWAConsumerReview
    July 18, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.

    John ... great topic. Isn't it amazing how "Fair and balanced", "Insightful and Compelling" have, instead of being descriptive of how the news is delivered, are just lies!

  • autumnfire
    July 18, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.

    pretty scary when journalist here in Arkansas had to retract article Rapert did not like regarding oil and gas activity.

  • Morebeer
    July 18, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.

    I've read Russell Baker's books and Boys on the Bus, and campaign journalism has always been strange. In Boys on the Bus, the author described end-of-day scenes in which most of the reporters would peer over the shoulder of the AP reporter to see what his lead paragraph was, so they could mimic it. Most feared that their editor wouldn't accept a storyline that veered from the AP version. In all areas of journalism, though, it's not unusual for reporters to cater to and protect sources, even corrupt ones. Remember how Libby, Cheney and Rove were protected during Plame-gate?

  • LevyRat
    July 18, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.

    I enjoyed reading this. Another fine effort. It is a shame, but ratings and circulation have put an end to journalism. I know I'm old, but I yearn to return to the days when what you read in print, heard on the radio or saw on TV was actually true and you got both sides of the story. I guess that would be too boring.

  • Coralie
    July 18, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.

    I don't know what happened to Yahoo News about a year ago, it's all Kardashians and funny little incidents now.

  • GiveUsLiberty
    July 18, 2012 at 1:51 p.m.

    Good column John. Spot on. I, too, have lamented the passing of the days of the Edward R. Murrow's, Huntley & Brinkley's and Walter Cronkite's. Now it seems all we have are cheerleaders masquerading as "journalists". If you own a computer and have internet access, you, too, can become a blogger and boor us to death with your lack of perspective, ill-thought out opinions, grammatical errors and atrocious spelling (even FB has spell check!) or you can be a 'talking head' if you can scream louder than the other guests, drown out the other panelists and generally make a spectacle of yourself. I trained to be a military journalist at the Defense Information School (DINFOS) at Ft. Benjamin Harrison, Indiana at the end of the Viet Nam War. To me, journalism has always been one of those sacred pursuits - a calling answered by those of clear mind, stout heart and a desire for the truth. Journalists are a Republic's first line of defense. Without INDEPENDENT journalists, all we have is PROPAGANDA. Alas, we still have you...whether or not I tend to disagree with your liberal viewpoint, you almost always consider the opposing view and ask the hard questions. Keep up the good work.