ANIYA ANDERSON

As it pertains to the original definition, censorship, or “prior restraint,” is a practice that is held by the government as a means of limiting freedom of speech and intercepting ideas before they ever reach the public. Though this is something that happens, it is highly looked down upon and there are various protections in place that disallow the federal government to casually enact this, there has to be a good reason.

In order to understand the deeper implications of censorship within the media, the legal definition helps to define what freedom of speech is, as well as journalistic freedom, and how censorship continues to limit its various aspects. Historically, many people who go into publishing—either academic or journalistic—go into it with the naïve misconception that the Constitutional Preamble’s promise of “freedom of speech, press, assembly, et al,” is a universal green light that gives them the right to write whatever they want, however they want. However, this isn’t the case—freedom of speech is not absolute, and prior restraint was introduced as a means of limiting our level of power as writers.

In the same way that budding writers are disillusioned by the misconstrued idea of unlimited writing protected by the First Amendment, there is an overarching image of censorship that continues to affect the way that people receive their media. Within the world of conglomeration of publishing houses and various news outlets printing/broadcasting stories to the world, there is a level of censorship at the hands of journalists and their editors that is going on behind the scenes that continues to sell the public a superficial, skewed, and unrealistic sense of understanding of the world. It continues to go undetected by the uninformed because of the underhanded methods of news outlets such as catch and kill that becomes harder and harder to detect by those on the outside, and those on the inside continue to watch it all play out.

In the newsroom and online, stories continue to erupt. The immersion of 24-hour news as the cultural standard for broadcast media means that stories are typically cranked out about everything all the time. Hard news stories—fires, murder cases, press releases of victim statements, economic issues/trends—dominate more often than not. Soft news stories—features, human interest, and grand openings—are typically sprinkled into the mix as a means to provide more variety to the news diet of the consumer. Even though these stories are distributed and given out by the editors and their subsequent helping hands, the stories are produced by the journalists occupying their specific beats—this is typically the first stop for censorship.

Self-censorship at the hands of the journalists stems from the fear of controversy. In the news world, reputation is something to be protected at all costs. Very rigid rules regarding the general and ethical conduct of reporters are set in place to ensure that a certain standard is maintained not only through their writing but also within their respective news outlets. Good ethics can be the one thing between winning and losing a libel suit, it can also make or break the reputation of an outlet. Bad ethics sends out a message of a lack of credibility, causing people—who are also naturally skeptical of the media—to lose trust in the outlet. Despite the general stereotyping of demographics, Fox News is a media outlet that has gained a strong level of distrust from Democrats and has been under scrutiny by other groups because they will knowingly publish stories with intentional bias. A straightforward story can contain hidden bias that alters the story in favor of the Republican agenda. Self-censorship is practiced in all of these ideas.

In his work “Reasons for Self-Censorship,” Ramadan Çipuri explains the social science of self-censorship as it pertains to the journalists who are on the frontlines of news production and dissemination. Although the practice of self-censorship is widely known, many reporters only recognize a singular definition when it affects multiple areas. Çipuri mentions one of the more common definitions as presented by Professor Dale T. Miller that states:

…Self-censorship is inherently neither good nor bad. Certainly, some acts of self-censorship reflect a failure of will, but others…reflect the presence of willpower and bespeak courage rather than weakness. For people to successfully negotiate their social world, they must have the ability to suppress their private feelings and thoughts, and equally important, to disguise the fact that they are doing so… Self-censorship is also essential to the smooth functioning of society” (Miller qtd. by Çipuri).

In Miller’s definition, this is the kind of self-censorship that is seen on a regular basis. The decision for a journalist to blatantly slander someone else, deciding against disclosing harmful information, etc., is how self-censorship manifests. It’s a certain level of restraint that can indeed aid in the “smooth functioning of society” (Miller qtd. by Çipuri). However, there is a clear line between the necessity of self-censorship, as presented here, and the excessive nature that can push journalists to stay silent due to a chilling effect (a legal term referring to when people avoid doing something for fear of facing harsh consequences).

Outside of presenting the neutral side of self-censorship, Çipuri also describes the other side of that token, which is the more restrictive and concerning aspect of self-censorship. He quotes Murat Yesil’s idea from “The Invisible Threat for the Future of Journalism: Self-Censorship and Conflicting Interests in an Increasingly Competitive Media Environment” saying, “In censorship, the boundaries are drawn about what to write or not by the outside powers, such as governments and companies, so journalists or publisher have no choice but write or publish as they are directed. On the contrary, in self-censoring issue, journalists are not told to do things openly, but they censor themselves, hide some facts that they think would be dangerous to write” (Çipuri). This definition leans into the more common idea of censorship that showcases the irony of a lack of freedom in a field that is predicated on freedom of speech. Things are constantly taking place in the world; unfortunately, a substantial number of negative events affect the public and have a greater chance of not being reported.

Presently, a rising number of journalists have begun to avoid stories that need to see the light for fear of what comes next. In exposing the underbellies of injustice, consequences can overpower the feeling of accomplishment. More than a fear of legal ramifications, personal reputations are at stake here. Being blacklisted can forever alter the career of a journalist, even if the groundbreaking story fulfills its job of enlightening the public to what goes on in a relatively unchecked area of the world.

Aside from self-censorship occurring from the inside, there are also the more well-known agents who facilitate censorship—editors. As I mentioned earlier, the federal government stands as the ultimate authority when it comes to enacting censorship; however, editors hold a substantial amount of this power as well. Even if there are bold and outspoken reporters with intent on breaking investigative stories, their missions can be intercepted by an editor who may choose to scrap the story entirely, heavily edit the piece to remove all of the “concerning parts,” or use other underhanded methods to ensure that a certain area is left well enough alone.

If a story needs to be put out and there is no room for scrapping it entirely, editors will resort to sensitivity reading to remove any controversial statements or facts from a piece before it is received by the public. There has been an extreme amount of discourse on the subject as it pertains to the larger conversation surrounding whether journalism as a craft is dying. Many journalists have begun to point out how sensitivity reads are a means of censorship that limits the scope of the purpose of writing.

Sensitivity reading can seem like a minor issue when one explores the concerning depths of the “catch and kill” practice that plagues the world of news publication. As defined in a Freedom Forum article on the subject, catch-and-kill journalism is “the general act of obtaining information not for the purpose of reporting it publicly but to do the opposite: to stop it (or “kill” it) from getting out” (Leadingham). These publishers will sell a false promise of change to unsuspecting journalists, only to scrap the story at the last minute for some undisclosed reason.

At first glance, this can seem like the typical gimmick of Hollywood—a bright starlet comes in with big dreams and a heart of gold, only to have her soul stolen by money-hungry producers looking for a product to sell. As devastating as this is, no one bats an eye because of its raging popularity—society has adopted an indifferent mindset to it, they see it as “just the way things are”. For journalists, the story is all the same; many reporters start out with big dreams of contributing to a greater good—they want to expose the underbellies of popular culture and hold figures (often people of power) accountable for their wrongdoings; however, that dream is just out of reach because the powerful and the influential remain protected by the same people who swore their dedication to the greater cause. Over time, those journalists who were optimistic, become complicit cogs in a system that they hoped—through wishful thinking—could be changed with just enough perseverance and gumption.

Ronan Farrow’s book of the same name, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and the Conspiracy to Protect Predators, is an example of the lengths that editors can go to protect the people who need to be held accountable. Farrow shows just how dangerous the interconnectivity between sources can be. The main story focuses on Farrow’s journey of trying to break a story on the sexual misconduct of former film producer Harvey Weinstein, he mentions several other well-known instances of large news corporations working with highly controversial people.

For example, Farrow mentions how Donald Trump had a close connection with Dylan Howard, Editor in Chief of the National Enquirer, and David Pecker, CEO of the Enquirer’s parent company America Media Inc, during his initial campaign. Sometime in 2016, AMI had accumulated a series of very sensitive documents surrounding Trump. As the campaign and the public reception picked up, Trump’s lawyer requested all of the “dirt” that AMI could publish about him. Due to the alliance between Howard, Pecker, and Trump, some of the documents were destroyed. According to Farrow, “In the first week of November 2016, just before the election, Dylan Howard, editor in chief of the National Enquirer issued an unusual order to a number of his staff ‘I need to get everything out of the safe,’ he said. ‘And then we need to get a shredder down there,’” (Farrow 16). Despite this, it’s said that Howard still denies that anything was ever destroyed. As the editor-in-chief, Howard had the power to eliminate a significant threat to how the public viewed Trump during such a crucial time.

In light of the all-too-recent election results, the media played a huge part in influencing voters’ decisions.

More sinisterly, this kind of underhanded behavior isn’t unheard of for AMI or the Enquirer. According to Farrow, “AMI routinely engaged in what employee after employee called ‘blackmail’—withholding the publication of damaging information in exchange for tips or exclusives” (Farrow #). He goes on to mention how Pecker takes pride in the kinds of perks that Trump offers. Additionally, the Enquirer continued to post overwhelmingly positive articles during Trump’s 2016 campaign, ensuring to cast Clinton in a negative light. To consumers, it’s a harmless bias, similar to FOX News’ conservative-leaning; however, they don’t know about what goes on behind the scenes—this is the vice that censorship poses for authentic journalism.

The selective censorship that occurs at higher levels by those in power—editors-in-chief, CEOs, etc.—aids in what could be considered the downfall of authentic journalism. It would be wishful thinking to say that this practice is relatively new because there have undoubtedly been times when the press has fallen victim to bribery. Alliances are not uncommon, even though they go against a journalist’s code of ethics; however, despite the illusion of a symbiotic relationship, there is someone who suffers the most—the public.

A journalist’s first duty is to serve the public by whatever means necessary. The establishment and proliferation of the press were to ensure that the people remain informed about everything that goes on around them. From trivial gossip surrounding pop culture figures to news about another reproductive right that is about to be overturned by the Supreme Court, there is always an obligation to the public. The mistrust that has festered among the public towards the press has been fostered by the ongoing pattern of dishonesty and distortion that makes up the news diet of the average consumer.

Self-censorship diminishes the number of journalists who feel comfortable reporting on the nitty-gritty. As they are being silenced by their editors and silencing themselves, they produce a more uniform stream of news that tends to cover the same topics. The same news continues to be recycled across every news outlet. Venturing into uncharted territory with more controversial stories is riskier because of how interconnected sources are with news outlets, and the alliances that precede them. Most will not take the plunge because their careers are at stake, meaning that the public has never experienced a certain level of honesty from the ones relaying their news. As for the higher-ups, they approve and reject certain stories for the purpose of maintaining their alliances and to keep from ruffling too many feathers. Even though one is more impactful than the other, both work together to project the most unrealistic view of the world.

Works Cited

Çipuri, Ramadan. “Reasons of Self-Censorship Landscape for Journalists,” June 2015, www.researchgate.net/publication/313441584_Reasons_of_self-censorship_landscape_for_journalists.

Farrow, Ronan. Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators. Back Bay Books, Little, Brown and Company, 2020.

Leadingham, Scott A. “What Is Catch and Kill Journalism?” Freedom Forum, 5 Sept. 2024, www.freedomforum.org/catch-and-kill-journalism/.