Years ago, when as a young journalist, I engaged my editors in the daily argument of “what is news?” I suffered a long string of defeats. The last word from editorial Olympus was often, “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.” That may be a hardhearted interpretation of the First Amendment, but it’s accurate. Or it was accurate, until I saw a story on April Fool’s Day saying the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy is offering magazines financial incentives to publish anti-drug articles.
It was revealed in January that the drug control people had been pulling the same stunt with network television and the program was quickly dropped. Now it turns out, six magazines, from Parade to U.S. News and World Report, are also in bed with federal drug controllers, but no one mentioned that until they were outed by Salon magazine. Now that the door is open and light is turned on, all those involved say nothing improper has occurred. If it’s not improper, why was it a secret?
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. The idea was not pleasing 20 years ago and the consolidation of the mass media that has transpired since has only added to the gloom, but this latest development breaches the line dividing a free press and a democratic government and portends poorly for both institutions.
Here’s how the scheme works: the federal drug people give money to the magazine and the magazine runs an anti-drug ad and a public service announcement. However, if the magazine prints a story deemed to be sufficiently anti-drug, the magazine is exempted from having to run the public service announcement and can sell that space for more revenue. The problem here is the magazine will or will not receive extra income based on the degree to which the federal government agrees with the content of its news pages. The only determinants of a news story should be the facts the discovered by a reporter and the news judgment of the editor. Period. The federal drug people don’t look at stories prior to publication, but both the reporter and the editor know that if the story tilts just enough in a certain direction, the publisher gets a windfall.
When I was a young reporter, I usually disagreed with the news judgment of my editor and publisher, but nobody told them what to put in their paper – not a snot-nosed kid and not the federal government – and for that, I respected them.
Two notable things about this news-and-drug program – one – the feds have gone to great pains to separate the financial reward from the editorial act, but the fact remains that the content of the copy determines whether the windfall is realized and all the elaborate dance steps merely show that all concerned knew going in this would be a conflict of interest. Two – the subject of this experiment is the war on drugs. If this continues, what other topics will the government find worthy of subsidy? Stories critical of Saddam Hussein? Stories encouraging military enlistment? Where does it end? If we erase the line between the federal government and the free press, where do we draw the new line?
The First Amendment says Congress shall make “no law abridging” freedom of the press. For 200 years that phrase has generally been interpreted to mean the government cannot prevent the press from speaking the truth. But the same amendment also means the government has no business inducing the press to spread a particular message, either.
A free press does not exist only for the thrilling moment when it challenges tyranny, but also for the daily reporting of mundane events and the faith we have that such reporting is true.
No Law Abridging
Years ago, when as a young journalist, I engaged my editors in the daily argument of “what is news?” I suffered a long string of defeats. The last word from editorial Olympus was often, “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.” That may be a hardhearted interpretation of the First Amendment, but it’s accurate. Or it was accurate, until I saw a story on April Fool’s Day saying the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy is offering magazines financial incentives to publish anti-drug articles.
It was revealed in January that the drug control people had been pulling the same stunt with network television and the program was quickly dropped. Now it turns out, six magazines, from Parade to U.S. News and World Report, are also in bed with federal drug controllers, but no one mentioned that until they were outed by Salon magazine. Now that the door is open and light is turned on, all those involved say nothing improper has occurred. If it’s not improper, why was it a secret?
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. The idea was not pleasing 20 years ago and the consolidation of the mass media that has transpired since has only added to the gloom, but this latest development breaches the line dividing a free press and a democratic government and portends poorly for both institutions.
Here’s how the scheme works: the federal drug people give money to the magazine and the magazine runs an anti-drug ad and a public service announcement. However, if the magazine prints a story deemed to be sufficiently anti-drug, the magazine is exempted from having to run the public service announcement and can sell that space for more revenue. The problem here is the magazine will or will not receive extra income based on the degree to which the federal government agrees with the content of its news pages. The only determinants of a news story should be the facts the discovered by a reporter and the news judgment of the editor. Period. The federal drug people don’t look at stories prior to publication, but both the reporter and the editor know that if the story tilts just enough in a certain direction, the publisher gets a windfall.
When I was a young reporter, I usually disagreed with the news judgment of my editor and publisher, but nobody told them what to put in their paper – not a snot-nosed kid and not the federal government – and for that, I respected them.
Two notable things about this news-and-drug program – one – the feds have gone to great pains to separate the financial reward from the editorial act, but the fact remains that the content of the copy determines whether the windfall is realized and all the elaborate dance steps merely show that all concerned knew going in this would be a conflict of interest. Two – the subject of this experiment is the war on drugs. If this continues, what other topics will the government find worthy of subsidy? Stories critical of Saddam Hussein? Stories encouraging military enlistment? Where does it end? If we erase the line between the federal government and the free press, where do we draw the new line?
The First Amendment says Congress shall make “no law abridging” freedom of the press. For 200 years that phrase has generally been interpreted to mean the government cannot prevent the press from speaking the truth. But the same amendment also means the government has no business inducing the press to spread a particular message, either.
A free press does not exist only for the thrilling moment when it challenges tyranny, but also for the daily reporting of mundane events and the faith we have that such reporting is true.