BEING AT odds with
publishers/owners is an all-too-common predicament among editors, including
presumptive ones like me, who strongly adhere to the dictum: “Publish first,
truth always, be damned later.”
Owners have their
corporate interests to preserve, protect, and promote which, in many cases are
at variance with the editor’s fundamental duty to publish Truth, no matter the
cost.
No way is this more
articulated than in Read All About It!
The Corporate Takeover of America’s Newspapers by James D. Squires, a
former editor of the Chicago Tribune, thus:
“The marriage of corporations and journalism is an unnatural, unhappy union. The best journalists are naturally
skeptical individuals with a healthy disrespect for authority, pomposity and
ruling classes. They understand and appreciate the ideal of democracy that one
man’s vote and voice are as important as another’s. And they have a well-honed
apparatus for detecting two staples of the corporate culture – bullshit and insincerity.”
You will know who wears
the pants in that unnatural, unhappy union with but a cursory browse of the
pages of a newspaper – the owner, when his photographs and news about the most
banal of his activities pepper the pages, page one not excluded. Yes, there are
publishers who simply love to publish themselves, when even the least of their business
endeavors crowd legitimate news out of the pages, in effect reducing their
papers to nothing more than company journals.
In such set-up, even the
best editors can only do their worst. As the great Arthur Krock, winner of
three Pulitzer Prices and once “Dean of Washington newsmen,” wrote: “A hired
journalism, however zealous, however loyal, however entrusted, however
brilliant, cannot be great because it speaks through the mist of
subordination.”
The editor having the
upper hand? When the publisher subordinates his interest to the “sanctity of
the desk.”
As in the early days of
journalism, newspapers are published to 1) indulge the whims and caprices of
the publisher; 2) promote his businesses; and 3) serve the political causes he
espouses. Civic duty is a thoroughly alien entity to the greater number of
publishers.
To paraphrase from memory
what I read somewhere, the title of the material I cannot immediately recall:
If you told that kind of publisher that he had a duty to the public to print
the news objectively and accurately, he would have asked what kind of duty some
other kinds of businessmen had. His newspaper being a business enterprise, news
to him would be the same as cars to a Levy Laus, or house and lot to a Nestor
Mangio, or tocino and longanisa to a Lolita Hizon, even halo-halo and pancit luglog to a Razon.
News being no more than a
commodity to sell, a product to be packaged and presented in whatever way that
will be most appealing to his customers and thus will bring him most profit.
Even at the expense of integrity.
But commercial viability
and editorial integrity are not mutually exclusive.
This is best exemplified
in The New York Times, unarguably the
number one newspaper in the world.
A well-known lore: At the
time of World War II, faced with newsprint rationing, the Ochs and Sulzberger
families that owned the Times chose
to print news over advertising, thereby sacrificing much-needed revenues that
the latter offered. The act singularly established their paper’s moral
ascendancy over all other newspapers in America.
With the Times emerging – and remaining to this
day – the most influential newspaper in the USA, if not in the whole world. That
good decision of the owners proved to be good business sense too.
High-mindedness returned better profits in the long run, so the moral lesson of
the Times story instructs us.
Perhaps, Punto!’s publishers have read that same
story. Hence, their express policy of editorial integrity first, profitability
second.
So I wrote ten years ago.
So I rewrite on this the eleventh year of Punto!,
with my appreciation to my publishers for putting up with my prejudices
even when they do not always share them.