A survey conducted by two professors at Indiana University's School of Journalism has found an astonishing drop in support amongst journalists for 'controversial' reporting techniques, including the use of confidential sources in reporting upon government corruption or misconduct.
The survey, which was first administered 40 years ago and has measured journalistic trends at ten-year intervals, queried over 1,000 journalists on a range of topics. The most striking reveal: what the survey's authors modestly call a "trend toward a more 'gentle' journalism in the United states."
That's one way to put it. This is what "gentle" journalism looks like:
Journalists were asked whether the three practices listed in the above graph "may be justified on occasion.” Twenty years ago, nearly 82 percent of journalists felt that using confidential sources without authorization was justifiable. Incredibly, two decades later, only 58 percent of journalists feel doing so is justifiable.
Think about that for a moment. In an American newsroom today, only 5 out of every 10 journalists would report upon unauthorized, leaked information revealing, say, government abuse of power or corruption. In other words, only 5 out of every 10 journalists today would justify the practices of the likes of Pulitzer Prize winners Barton Gellman of The Washington Post and Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, much less New York Times journalist James Risen, currently being prosecuted by the Obama administration for using leaked CIA documents that came to him from an anonymous source.
In other words: only half of those journalists surveyed would report upon information brought to them by a whistleblower. The other half? They might walk away.
That's "gentle" journalism.
Interestingly, this survey was conducted from August to December of 2013, which was in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations and the informational earthquakes such revelations created in America and around the world. One might think, with outlets like The Washington Post and The Guardian printing such important and groundbreaking articles based upon Snowden's leaks, journalists might have been more likely to back such practices.
After all, the Snowden leaks have and continue to expose the government's surveillance overreach and massive abuse of power via the NSA and FBI.
However, the opposite has occurred. Today, less journalists seem willing to do today what almost every journalist 20 years ago would have done: report upon information those in power don't want the general public to see.
This survey seems to reveal a massive collapse in journalistic courage. Aside from commercial pressures and considerations related to changes in digital media, one must wonder what is happening. Is this all about access to power? A fear of alienating sources? A desire to move up the chain?
Why are we seeing more "gentle" journalists today? Why is the fourth estate's courage eroding at such a rapid pace?
Perhaps it's time to ask those who took this survey for some answers.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
Author's Note:
From the survey, here are some more 'controversial' techniques journalists today are less willing to use: