NYTimes Exposes Its Own & Other Media Pimping For Obama & Romney
Both the Obama and Romney campaigns require reporters to submit their articles for approval. Otherwise, no access.
Read the admission in the New York Times: Latest Word on the Campaign Trail? I Take It Back
This is the sort of sleazy totalitarian practice we’ve seen in Cuba and Venezuela. Who knew Obama and Romney were both taking cues from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?
This is the sort of sleazy conduct that might be expected from a financially shaky, fourth-rate trade journal that has to slant coverage in order to suck up to advertisers. This is a pay-for-play scenario that is clearly unethical and inappropriate.
It’s clear now that major media campaign coverage is simply substandard flackery that deserves no credibility and even less respect.
I say this as a journalist who has covered the White House and Congress, as a former university j-school faculty member, Congressional press secretary, top aide to a state Governor, political campaign manager and as a consumer of news who expects real meat rather than adulterated bologna.
This practice is nothing less than mockery of the First Amendment. A decent reporter who is worthy of being called a journalist would rather miss a story and retain some integrity than prostitute themselves like that.
Certainly, showing excerpts of articles to sources for accuracy is acceptable but only with the clear understanding that errors in fact can be corrected but the story stands otherwise. Fact checking is one thing, but to give someone veto power is beneath the dignity and basic journalistic standards the public has a right to expect.
And, yes, in the past, some sources have stopped talking to me after they read the final article. That’s life as an HONEST journalist. It’s a risk that has to be taken to write an article that can be trusted.
Obviously, we cannot trust campaign articles from Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times. They were all named in the New York Times piece as examples of media outlets that admit to caving in, sucking up and agreeing to the campaign rules rather than having the guts and integrity to tell the campaigns where they can shove their policy. By that standard, the National Enquirer rises far above those once and formerly august outlets.
And if the public can’t trust their campaign articles, what else have they written that is equally tainted?
When I was on the other side of the equation as a press secretary and/or government official, I would never have suggested such an unethical arrangement. It’s dishonest.
It’s clear that this practice offers solid, verifiable data for those who bash the “Lamestream Media.”
I have never been so ashamed of being a journalist, because I now get lumped into the same vocational category as those dishonest clowns.