CJR - Without Fear or Favor, by Joan Konner

by Joan Konner

The ethos of journalism -- practiced as a profession in the public interest in a democratic society -- is not mandated by code, license, or law. It is an inner oath that emerges from the history of quality journalism as expressed in the words and deeds of publishers, broadcasters, and journalists at all levels -- editors, reporters, writers, and producers. That ethos informs the work of all journalists who would call themselves professionals, and it is the commitment that inspires this magazine.

Adolph Ochs (1858 - 1935) was one of the publishers who helped articulate and set the standards against which journalism continues to be measured. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his purchase of The New York Times, we quote from from his writings and statements:

It will be my earnest aim that The New York Times give the news, all the news, in concise and attractive form, in language that is permissible in good society, and give it as early if not earlier, than it can be learned through any other reliable medium; to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interest involved; to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades
of opinion.

In 1897, Spencer Trask, who supported Ochs in his acquisition of the newspaper, wrote to him demanding final approval on a Times story. This is from Ochs's reply:

I do not recognize that you have any right to expect me to comply with any such request. I do not understand that you have any control whatsoever of the editorial conduct of The New York Times. I cannot agree that any publication which is to appear in The New York Times or that is proposed for publication should be submitted for your approval other than when it may be entirely voluntary
with me. . . .

It would be impossible to avoid publications that do not meet with your approval. Notwithstanding the strict supervision I exercise, it is not an uncommon occurrence that publications are made which if my attention had been called to them before they appeared, would either have been omitted or materially changed. . . .

If my recollection serves me correctly, you have on frequent occasions coincided with me in the opinion that The New York Times will only be a success when it is conducted strictly as a newspaper, free from the control and the influence of anyone except those who are wholly occupied in its publication. In the conduct of a newspaper along the lines on which the Times is now gaining favor, it will be next to impossible to avoid mistakes, and no doubt it will happen at times that some of my best friends will be led to believe that in the appearance of some publications I am careless or indifferent to their interests (if they do not go further and even consider me antagonistic) when in truth I may be innocent and the purpose of the publication likewise, but such occurrences are simply incidents of a business that is frequently as embarrassed by its friends as it is annoyed by its enemies.

An enterprising, progressive, fair, and well-conducted newspaper of good typographical appearance, well established in a community, is a more profitable advertising medium than a widely circulated inferior newspaper with circulation ten times as large, gained by bombast, sensationalism, and gift enterprises and guessing matches.

It is also true that The New York Times is not a crusading newspaper. It is impressed with the responsibility of what it prints. It is conservative and independent, and so far as possible -- consistent with honest journalism -- attempts to aid and support those who are charged with the responsibility of government. There are many newspapers conducted along different lines, some of them vicious, ill-natured, and destructive of character and reputation, and for mere purposes of sensation they frequently terrorize well qualified and well meaning men to the point where they are discouraged from accepting invitations to give their ability, genius, and experience to the administration of public affairs.

-- From a 1931 letter Ochs wrote to a man who had cut off his Times subscription.