A confession of my deal with the devil at the Daily News
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Şubat 14, 2009 00:00
Some years ago, I found myself at a small Washington gathering of veteran American reporters and one Algerian, a guest on a Fulbright Scholarship or something. The conversation took a patronizing turn, one of those cultural faux pas situations for which my countrymen are famous and often so blissfully clueless.
This was at a time when censorship, oppression and even the killing of journalists in Algeria was making international headlines. Reasonably, if ham-handedly, an editor turned to our Algerian guest and asked: "So, how do you do your job when the government is constantly censoring you?" What was implicitly in the question was a sort of, "Welcome to the land of the free little sister, now you can learn about real journalism."
The urbane Algerian hesitated a moment, offering a wry if sad smile. "We do the best we can," she responded. She then proceeded to do something quite provocative. Deliberately, but feigning innocence, she then asked:
"May I enquire how you do your job when the government is censoring you?" For the Americans around the table, this was an absurd, even dumb question. "This is America, we don’t have censorship" was the response. The Algerian stifled a laugh. "Oh, I see," she said.
This standoff of conceptual realities was there on the table, as concrete as the salt- and peppershakers. And I saw a chance to come to the aid of my Algerian colleague. "I can give you scores of examples of self-censorship in the American media, right here in Washington," I said.
Suddenly I was the Fourth Estate’s equivalent of Benedict Arnold, the famous traitor of America’s revolutionary war. My colleagues were incredulous that one of their own would make such a horrible claim.
To the wave of protests I responded that I could easily prove my point. The challenges to do so were swift and forceful. "I will tell you," I said, "but I have a condition." And what might this be, my friends wanted to know? I explained that if I shared this set of dark secrets, I could only do so, "off the record." An exchange of glances and nodding of heads around the table confirmed these were suitable terms of engagement.
"Alright," I proceeded. "That was my example. Everybody at this table, except our Algerian colleague, has voluntarily agreed to self-censorship. ’Off-the-record’ agreements are the coin of the journalistic realm in Washington, and we make them blithely, indifferent to the damage we do to our profession in the process."
Needless to say, I hardly won over my American colleagues that day. This was just another senseless ramble from David, a nice enough guy but one apparently still suffering from some kind of brain damage incurred during a portion of childhood spent abroad. I suppose I got a bit of empathy from the Algerian but I am not sure. I never saw her again.
My Washington colleagues, I am afraid, just assumed I was playing a word game, or trying to impress a pretty young Algerian with large and pained dark eyes. I will cop to the latter charge. But as to the charge of playing word games, I was not. I was deadly serious and remain so.
There are certainly times when "off the record," or its variants "background" or "deep background," is unavoidable. But most of the time in our trade, this is not the case. The line, "according to a diplomatic source" can elevate the junior functionary to the respectability needed for quotation in a prestigious journal. Oftentimes sources do not seek "off the record" deals themselves, but are quoted in such fashion to keep competing colleagues from learning just to whom it is we are talking.
And often, it is a mechanism that appeals to reporters because it is a mark of insider status, a sort of cheap key to the brethrenhood at City Hall or the Pentagon or the Ministry of Agriculture.
Sometimes we have no choice. We have and will continue to use the tool of "off the record" at the Daily News when this is essential to the pursuit of truth. But we do so mindful that each time we do, we make a compromise. We steal from our contract with our readers, we sacrifice a bit of credibility, we do harm to our profession.
Shortly after that episode at the table with the Algerian, I had a phone call from Roger Hedges, the managing editor of Gannett News Service and my immediate boss. He had heard of the dust-up and was, thankfully, laughing.
"Don’t worry about it David," said Roger. "You lost any chance to be elected by your peers to a post at the National Press Club years ago.
Your mouth cannot do you any more damage than it already has. "And by the way," Roger added. "You are right." So I remember Roger fondly this Friday afternoon; he remains among the wisest newspapermen I have ever met.
You may wonder why I am devoting this Weekend column to the topic. I write because circumstances in recent days, an incident involving the Daily News and an international news organization, prompted a lively debate among ourselves on this very issue. I would like to share the details, but I can’t.
I had no choice. I made a deal. It’s all off the record.
David Judson is editor-in-chief of the H rriyet Daily News & Economic Review.
The urbane Algerian hesitated a moment, offering a wry if sad smile. "We do the best we can," she responded. She then proceeded to do something quite provocative. Deliberately, but feigning innocence, she then asked:
"May I enquire how you do your job when the government is censoring you?" For the Americans around the table, this was an absurd, even dumb question. "This is America, we don’t have censorship" was the response. The Algerian stifled a laugh. "Oh, I see," she said.
This standoff of conceptual realities was there on the table, as concrete as the salt- and peppershakers. And I saw a chance to come to the aid of my Algerian colleague. "I can give you scores of examples of self-censorship in the American media, right here in Washington," I said.
Suddenly I was the Fourth Estate’s equivalent of Benedict Arnold, the famous traitor of America’s revolutionary war. My colleagues were incredulous that one of their own would make such a horrible claim.
To the wave of protests I responded that I could easily prove my point. The challenges to do so were swift and forceful. "I will tell you," I said, "but I have a condition." And what might this be, my friends wanted to know? I explained that if I shared this set of dark secrets, I could only do so, "off the record." An exchange of glances and nodding of heads around the table confirmed these were suitable terms of engagement.
"Alright," I proceeded. "That was my example. Everybody at this table, except our Algerian colleague, has voluntarily agreed to self-censorship. ’Off-the-record’ agreements are the coin of the journalistic realm in Washington, and we make them blithely, indifferent to the damage we do to our profession in the process."
Needless to say, I hardly won over my American colleagues that day. This was just another senseless ramble from David, a nice enough guy but one apparently still suffering from some kind of brain damage incurred during a portion of childhood spent abroad. I suppose I got a bit of empathy from the Algerian but I am not sure. I never saw her again.
My Washington colleagues, I am afraid, just assumed I was playing a word game, or trying to impress a pretty young Algerian with large and pained dark eyes. I will cop to the latter charge. But as to the charge of playing word games, I was not. I was deadly serious and remain so.
There are certainly times when "off the record," or its variants "background" or "deep background," is unavoidable. But most of the time in our trade, this is not the case. The line, "according to a diplomatic source" can elevate the junior functionary to the respectability needed for quotation in a prestigious journal. Oftentimes sources do not seek "off the record" deals themselves, but are quoted in such fashion to keep competing colleagues from learning just to whom it is we are talking.
And often, it is a mechanism that appeals to reporters because it is a mark of insider status, a sort of cheap key to the brethrenhood at City Hall or the Pentagon or the Ministry of Agriculture.
Sometimes we have no choice. We have and will continue to use the tool of "off the record" at the Daily News when this is essential to the pursuit of truth. But we do so mindful that each time we do, we make a compromise. We steal from our contract with our readers, we sacrifice a bit of credibility, we do harm to our profession.
Shortly after that episode at the table with the Algerian, I had a phone call from Roger Hedges, the managing editor of Gannett News Service and my immediate boss. He had heard of the dust-up and was, thankfully, laughing.
"Don’t worry about it David," said Roger. "You lost any chance to be elected by your peers to a post at the National Press Club years ago.
Your mouth cannot do you any more damage than it already has. "And by the way," Roger added. "You are right." So I remember Roger fondly this Friday afternoon; he remains among the wisest newspapermen I have ever met.
You may wonder why I am devoting this Weekend column to the topic. I write because circumstances in recent days, an incident involving the Daily News and an international news organization, prompted a lively debate among ourselves on this very issue. I would like to share the details, but I can’t.
I had no choice. I made a deal. It’s all off the record.
David Judson is editor-in-chief of the H rriyet Daily News & Economic Review.