Self-Censorship - CJR, May/June 2000

May/June 2000 | Contents

SELF-CENSORSHIP: COUNTING THE WAYS

BY ANDREW KOHUT

Self-censorship has always been a problem for journalists, but a new survey reveals just how commonplace and insidious it is.

About a quarter of those polled have personally avoided pursuing newsworthy stories.

About three-in-ten believe that stories are ignored because they might conflict with the financial interests of their news organizations or advertisers.

And majorities think that complexity or lack of audience appeal causes newsworthy stories not to be pursued.

These are among the findings in a major survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Columbia Journalism Review. A total of 287 journalists were polled, including 81 senior editors and executives.

The survey highlights the nature and extent of self-censorship in journalism today:

* Journalists are more likely to confirm that self-censorship exists generally than to personally admit to avoiding newsworthy stories. Still, the 26 percent who acknowledge personal self-censorship goes to 41 percent when reshaping or softening is included. There is a generational divide on this question, with younger journalists more likely than older colleagues to say they have avoided or toned down stories.

* Market pressures -- manifested when newsworthy stories are ignored because they are too boring or complicated -- are seen as the most common factor for not pursuing good stories. Nearly eight in ten of those surveyed say stories that are seen as important but dull are often or sometimes ignored, while a majority says the same of highly complex stories.

* Local journalists face especially difficult challenges. Nearly one-third (32 percent) acknowledge they have softened the tone of a news story on behalf of the interests of their news organization; only 15 percent of those in the national media say they have done so. And 26 percent of local reporters say they have been told to avoid a story because it was dull or overly complicated, but suspect the real reason for the decision was that the story could harm their company's financial interests. Just 2 percent of national reporters harbor such suspicions.

* Investigative reporters -- a discreet group drawn entirely from the members of Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE) -- are more likely than either local or national journalists to cite the impact of business pressures on editorial decisions. A strong majority (61 percent) of this group believes that corporate owners exert at least a fair amount of influence on decisions about which stories to cover; 51 percent of local journalists and just 30 percent of national journalists agree. Because this group does not comprise a representative cross-sample of journalists, its responses have not been included in the total results.

The reasons for avoiding stories can be many and varied. Often, time-starved reporters say they simply do not have the opportunity to follow up on important subjects. But market forces are seen as the primary reason why worthwhile stories are not pursued, and this factor is especially prevalent in the broadcast arena. Three-quarters of national broadcast journalists (and nearly six in ten of their local counterparts) say newsworthy stories are at least sometimes ignored because they are regarded as too complicated for the average person.

Print journalists, both local and national, are far less likely to cite such conflicts as a factor. In general, local journalists cite conflicts of interest -- financial and otherwise -- more often than their national colleagues. In particular, more local than national print reporters say stories that are damaging to the financial interests of news organizations are commonly or sometimes avoided. At the local level, print reporters and executives are about as likely as broadcast news professionals to cite this as a reason for ignoring stories. But among national journalists, broadcasters cite this as more of a factor in self-censorship than print reporters.

Perhaps surprisingly, peer pressure -- fear of embarrassment or potential career damage -- is mentioned by about half of all journalists as a factor in avoiding newsworthy stories. But the survey finds little evidence that journalists steer clear of newsworthy stories because they might aggravate community problems. Only about one-in-five (19 percent) of all journalists say newsworthy stories are often or sometimes avoided for this reason. Journalists say that, typically, they do not decide on their own to avoid newsworthy stories. More than half of those who think stories are sometimes ignored say that journalists either get signals from their bosses to avoid such stories or ignore them based on how they think their bosses would react. Of those who believe newsworthy stories are being avoided to protect corporate interests, fully three-quarters say journalists get signals or anticipate negative reactions from superiors, and just 8 percent say journalists decide to avoid such stories completely on their own.

Just as journalism is often more art than science, the process of determining when, why, and even whether good stories are being ignored is an imperfect one -- as journalists themselves freely admit. A strong majority (58 percent) says that journalists at least sometimes wrongfully suspect stories are killed or buried because of conflicts of interest, when the stories in question simply lack merit. On the other hand, the survey provides considerable evidence that at least for some journalists, there has been an unmistakable intrusion of commercial interests into newsroom decisions. For instance, about one in five of local (20 percent) and national (17 percent) reporters say they have faced criticism or pressure from their bosses after producing or writing a piece that was seen as damaging to their company's financial interests.

Overall, journalists have a more pessimistic attitude toward their profession than in the Pew Center's last major poll of journalists in early 1999. More local journalists report increased influence by corporate owners and advertisers in decisions on which stories to cover. And on the question of whether the media do a good job of informing the public, local and national journalists give themselves poorer marks than last year. In 1999, about half of national (49 percent) and local (55 percent) journalists said the news business did a good or excellent job of balancing journalism's twin goals of telling the public what it wants to know and what it needs to know. Now, only 37 percent of national journalists and 35 percent of local journalists give the profession high marks, with majorities in both groups saying the media do only a fair job at this crucial task.

Andrew Kohut is director of The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press and a columnist for CJR The center selected representative journalists from national and local media with lists gathered from more than a decade of polling. For the first time, respondents had the opportunity to answer on the Internet, and 243 out of 287 did. In addition, 90 members of IRE were also interviewed. Follow-up mail a telephone calls were used to encourage participation and when necessary to complete interviews.