Suppression in the media

The media and press have always been under pressure from the government to promote the content that it sees fit. Today, we see this with the Ukraine-Russia War and the Nord Stream gas pipeline's explosion. 

The government pushes the narrative that it was Russia, but there is evidence that the U.S. may have had a hand in it. If the U.S. government wants something to look a certain way, then by golly that is how it is going to be. 

Unless, journalists do their job.

A historical example of pressure and suppression of the media was portrayed in the "Good Night, and Good Luck" move. The movie was made in 2005, edited into black and white, and had numerous A-list actors. 

It showed the fallout of McCarthyism thanks to CBS journalists. 

The movie tells the story of how early television broadcaster and journalist Edward Murrow exposed Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954 on his television show "See It Now". This was tough for Murrow to accomplish because all the news outlets were pushing McCarthy's and the U.S. government's rhetoric leading to a sort of media blackout on truth about communism's influence in America.

While exposing McCarthy and the U.S. government, Murrow received pushback from both the government and his own superiors at CBS.

Some of this pushback from the government included using the chilling effect and stonewalling. 

Stonewalling was present when the government refused to comment or answer questions of Murrow's when he was digging for information on the dishonorably discharged soldier. 

The government then took it a step further and tried to intimidate Murrow by using the chilling effect by having two soldiers threatening him to not broadcast the story. 

But Murrow still decided to publish the truth. He knew the proper roles of the media when it comes to its governmental interactions. He knew the press should be an independent entity that acts as a watchdog. The media should be a sort of check and balance on the government just like each branch has on the others.

He showed that McCarthy's efforts to stoke fear into American hearts about the presence of Soviet spies and communism in America was fake and inaccurate during the episode titled "Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy."

Murrow was successful during his time, but who will step up now? We are still struggling with these issues. 

A media blackout is occurring when it comes to reporting on the non-Ukrainian side of the Russia-Ukraine War and specifically the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion. This is because even though some reporters have written about U.S. involvement, the major media networks stay silent. 

An example of stonewalling in current times is when Iowa moved the press from the floor of its state senate to the upper gallery. This makes it difficult to consult with legislators like they used to, which prohibits their ability to tell the accurate truth and news. 

Also, there is still a chance of chilling effects on reporters. Just ask Judith Miller. The government threatened and punished her for not giving up a source and their conversations together. The government will sometimes do this like a warning shot across the bow (while not initiating prior restraint because the courts look down upon that), but they could use subsequent punishments. 

This is not to mention the influence peddling that we never hear about. This is when there is a quid pro quo agreement between a reporter and usually the government, but could be any source. The interaction would go along the lines of "if you do not publish this story then I will give you an exclusive interview on something else."

Whether you are evaluating McCarthyism, the Russia-Ukraine conflict or even the motivation behind the Iraq War, the movie "Good Night, and Good Luck" perfectly illustrates the impact and influence that the U.S. government used and still attempts to assert over the media. 

But how?

Much of government influence or oversight occurs through social media. This is why I would call today the "connectivity era" because there are so many new ways to stay connected and influence others or be influenced. 

For example, I have somewhere around 13 different ways that I stay connected with society though either social media, email or regular calling/texting. This is the same for many people in the United States as 72% of Americans have a social media account. 

And with new media technologies, it is much easier for the government to disseminate information and sway public opinion as it is a much more centralized medium and way to reach people. 

War propoganda

One constant throughout human existence has been war. But what has become a relatively new is the use of propaganda during war. 

Propaganda is sharing ideas with the goal of hurting a cause or person. The first well-known use of propaganda was with the Catholic Church in 1622 with the "Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith" where the church sent missionaries to the New World to convert the indigenous people to Christianity. 

War propaganda is a bit different though because it is the action of working to change peoples' attitudes about a war. 

 

In America, war propaganda really originated in the Spanish-American War with the sinking of the Maine. In this instance, Hearst influenced media coverage by blaming the Spanish for the sinking and was known to say, "You furnish the pictures, I'll provide the war." This is a great example of how flashy reporting and yellow journalism can affect interpretation.

 

Shortly after the Spanish-American War ended, the United States was entangled in World War I. The U.S. government utilized war propaganda through the famous Uncle Sam Wants You poster. This poster was affective and persuasive in recruiting soldiers through being convincing and personable. 

And transitioning into World War II, the U.S. then used the Rosie the Riveter poster. This was a form of war propaganda to get women into the workforce and factories to make war equipment. It worked. As the percentage of woman working outside of the home skyrocketed, and the U.S. won WWII. 

 

The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics says that journalists should seek to provide the unbiased truth. This should still be the case no matter what, so journalists should be aware of their impact upon the course of history with their reporting. 

Anonymous sources, journalism

Journalism is about telling the unbiased truth and holding those in power accountable for their actions. Many times, this is easy enough because you can reach out to any official to get comments. 

But what about when the source does not want to be identified? That gets tricky because anonymous sources can be valuable or detrimental to a publication. The Society of Professional Journalists has some basic guidelines for dealing with anonymous sources:

1. When at all possible, identify a source by name and title.
2. Question the reasoning behind a source wanting anonymity. 
3. Clarify if there are any strings attached to any information revealed.
4. Keep all promises. 

The commonality of using anonymous sources in the media has waxed and waned over time with there currently being more hesitancy. This is mainly because readers might lose trust in the organization if they are too prominent. 

    

The most widely-acclaimed and successful use of an anonymous source was the Watergate scandal. 

    

In 1972, the Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein worked with a source dubbed as "Deep Throat" to break the story of the Nixon Administration's role in the Watergate complex break-in. 

    

"Deep Throat" was self-identified as the then-assistant director of the FBI Mark Felt. This came after he denied being "Deep Throat" multiple times and the reporters not revealing his name for over 30 years. 

    

In this situation, Felt would only confirm or deny information and would meet Woodward and Bernstein in a parking garage in the middle of the night to keep his identity secret.

    

While the Watergate scandal's use of anonymous sources was a success, there are instances where anonymous sources can be harmful. This was the case when it came to the O.J Simpson murder trial. 

The Simpson case had captured the attention of the whole nation as there were cameras in the courtroom to watch the proceedings. The media's influence is exemplified by over 2,000 reporters covering the case and 80 miles of cables used that led to over 142 million viewers across the United States watching the final verdict be announced. 

So it makes sense that news organizations would want to get the best scoop, and that led the local station KNBC to report that blood and DNA on a sock found matched the late Nicole Simpson's. 

How did they come across that information? You guessed it. An anonymous source. 

    

With the high media attention, it was obvious that this could influence the final decision, and that determination led the presiding judge, Lance Ito, to close the courtroom from cameras. KNBC later admitted the information could have been false. 

In both of those situations, the reporters got away with having anonymous sources, but others have dealt with pressure and backlash to reveal a source's identity. 

Just ask Judith Miller.

During the United States's war on terror in the early 2000's, the U.S. falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an OpEd in the New York Times saying that he found nothing of the sort while on the ground. 

Shortly thereafter, his wife, Valeria Plame, was revealed as a CIA agent by writer Robert Novack. Many believe the leak was the White House's doing because they believed Plame had something to with Wilson being sent to the country. 

The Bush administration held a grand jury investigation into the matter. Miller was involved because it was believed (and was true) that she met then-Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby in the days around the release of Novack's article and had more information.

Miller refused to discuss any sources or possible meetings with sources by declaring reporters' privilege, but that was not upheld. She was held in jail for 85 days for not revealing the information. She only left after Libby told her by phone that it was OK to reveal their meetings and information discussed to the grand jury. 

This shows just how tricky the issue of anonymous sources can be, but it has led to some states to implement shield laws to provide total or partial protection of journalists and their sources in court, with some variations and exceptions between states. 

And so this leads to the discussion of what constitutes an anonymous source? Someone whose name and specific title is not revealed. So, it is important to touch on the different levels of attribution journalists use. 

On the record means that a reporter is allowed to use any information or direct quotes from a source while also identifying the source by both name and title. 

On background or also known as not for attribution means that reporter can use a source's information and direct quotes, but cannot identify them by name. Instead, a general title is usually used such as "a source in the mayor's office..." 

On deep background means that the reporter can use the information from the source, but cannot quote them or identify them in any way. This could be used by saying "a knowledgeable source described..."

Off the record means that reporter cannot use any information from a source and cannot identify them, but the information obtained can be used to find other sources or information. This often can get confused by unknowledgeable people for on background. 

It is important to take all of this into account when thinking about anonymous sources. When possible, journalists should not use anonymous sources because it can hurt the news' credibility, but there are times when exceptions are necessary to fulfill a journalists main responsibilities. 

Foundational female reporters

Like many things in the nineteenth century and before, the workforce was very male dominant. As the nineteenth century ended and we into the twentieth century, the tide of equality became a reality. 

This was also true with journalism.  

In the late 1800's, there were a group of female newspaper reporters who went undercover to uncover horrible working conditions and urban illnesses. 

They were considered by many to be yellow journalists because of their covered topics and perception as females, which ended up hurting their reputation at the time. Now, we recognize and value their commitment and work to tell the truth.

One of the most well-known of these reporters was Nellie Bly who is also known as her birth name Elizabeth Cochran(e). Bly got her first journalistic job at the Pittsburgh Dispatch after the editor was impressed by her angry letter in response to a piece they ran titled "What Girls Are Good For." 

Bly received very little education, but still made an impact through her undercover reporting. Her piece called "Ten Days in a Madhouse" where she feigned insanity to be admitted into an insane asylum. She uncovered the treatment of patients that led to investigations of medical treatment.

Another one of these female reporters was Eva McDonald or also known as her writing name Eva Gay. McDonald typically wrote for the St. Paul Globe discussing labor conditions, especially those for women. 

She would go undercover into mills and factories as a ragged worker. This enabled her to fit in and relate to real people to see how they actually are. Some of the things she brought to light were crowded working environments, long hours, little light/ventilation, dangerous chemicals/machinery and sexual harassment. 

One of McDonald's first pieces was "The Toiling Women" that highlighted these issues at the Shotwell, Cherihew and Lothmann garment factory. The piece resulted in a strike by women workers shortly after its release. 

These female reporters, along with the muckrakers, were the beginnings of modern in-depth and investigative journalism that today's journalists should aspire to be.