Press conference time: "Ladies and gentlemen of the media, we've had our differences in the past and I hope you'll give me hell every time that you think I'm wrong." Believe it or not, thus spoke the late US President Richard Nixon who fought many a pitched battle with the US media and eventually "threw in the towel and left the presidency, prematurely, in disgrace. Now one might well ask, "Why should we be even bothering about Nixon and his 'take-no-prisoners' attitude towards the American media?" According to Marshall McLuhan's two maxims re: the technological impact on the mass media, "The medium is the message" and "We now live in a global village."
It therefore goes without saying that, where media are concerned, any meaningful discussion can usefully be informed by adopting an international perspective. But back to Richard Nixon. His ingratiating posture preceded Watergate, which turned out to be Nixon's Waterloo and a US media watershed. That's now all water under the bridge, although the US media can look back on that hectic period as one of "their finest hours," to borrow a Churchillian expression. It appears that not only American politics but the US media continue to be obsessed with, if not haunted by, the ghost of Watergate. Understandably, that's, arguably, bound sometimes to impinge on a sense of balance and journalistic judgment. That should not, however, detract from the fact that respect for the media ratcheted upward several notches and the young reporters (Woodward and Bernstein) became household names and national celebrities.
Incidentally, the identity of their source/whistleblower code-named "Deep Throat" became a guessing game until Deep Throat himself blew his own cover, in the person of an old, ailing man whose motive was that of being bypassed for promotion. Ironically, he was the very individual assigned to probe the source of the leaks. As one saw, poor Nixon didn't stand a chance. When the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal hit the fan, some were quick to see it as another Watergate story. The sordid details of the investigation were caused to be inflicted on the international community, via the Internet. I was intrigued by CNN's news chief Frank Sesno's justification for carrying the seedy document without any effort at editing.
From the "publish-and-be-damned" brigade, one can expect howls against "censorship" and "self-censorship." The fact of the matter is that there's a world of difference between censorship of any sort and judicious editing, for reasons of good taste, fairness, respect for legitimate privacy or other cogent journalistic reasons that any sensible, sensitive and self-respecting editorial staff can openly and without compunction justify. Given the level and sophistication of today's technology, it's quite easy for the information superhighway to be used as a super-dumping ground for all sorts of crazies, mischief-makers, hate-mongers, and "twisted nerves" to have a field day, irrespective of the consequences, intended or unintended. The media, in their role as unabashed investigators of matters of public interest, tend to characterise themselves as "watchdogs."
Frank Sesno claimed that he also saw the media as "gatekeepers" and in the case of "unedited near pornographic material" alluded to, his journalistic judgment was that the best gatekeeping was no gatekeeping at all. However he is not singular in that respect. He also admitted to the media's irrepressible search for that "blockbuster story," even if they have to give it that push themselves. Of course, it's simply a question of having to steal a march on the competition. How often have we heard, even among the more prudent publications, "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story." Sometimes journalists, as well as politicians, forget that trust and credibility are wasting assets. That's so even nowadays, when we no longer lie or dissemble, but misspeak, no longer commit colossal blunders but simply misstep, no longer fire people but relieve them of their responsibilities, we're seldom empty-minded, just open-minded, and the beat goes on.
Which reminds me of the time when both the government of the day and their political challengers were playing cheap politics with the Garvin Scott Drug Report which purported to be the product of an enquiry into the then state of the drug problem in the community. In fact it was more akin to some form of intelligence gathering and, by its very nature, a very sensitive compilation, not intended for public dissemination.
In short, it could have been regarded as raw criminal data which had presumably provided the groundwork of viable leads for subsequent criminal investigation. This having been made a political football in the run-up to the 1986 general election, the NAR challengers publicly committed themselves to publishing the sensitive document, which they, presumably, had not seen. Eventually, the sensitive document was clandestinely released in Barbados. Who would do such a reckless and dangerously foolish thing? It didn't really matter, as in my view both groups had motive and lacked the political perspicacity. Given their respective track records.