It’s not that journalists have thin skins — it’s that they have no skins.
Whenever editors want to impose their will on a newsroom — be they editors at newspapers, magazines, news wires, websites, or TV programs — they dictate a memo for distribution to their journalists noting that stories have gotten too long and instructing everybody to write shorter. It’s a frequent request, as editors come to believe that their reporters aren’t listening to them or are openly defying their requests to file more succinct copy. In recent days, top editors at my outlet, Reuters, sent such a memo, asking writers in the Americas to diet their copy down to between 300 and 500 words. So did a top editor at the Associated Press, who set similar goals for his reporters and editors. Inspired by these bold moves, I’m sure that editors all over America have typed up their own shorter-is-better memos and are pressing send right now. (The Reuters memo says the call for short copy is nothing new — it’s in the Reuters Handbook. The AP says it’s responding to requests of its members, who don’t have time to edit copy down.)
Cass R. Sunstein emptied his digestive system of a steaming wad of press rancor Wednesday in his Bloomberg View column titled “Why Officials Don’t Tell the Media Everything.” Sunstein — a legal scholar who served as the Obama administration’s regulatory czar for three years and more recently sat on the panel that reviewed U.S. surveillance programs — phrases in his usual genial but condescending fashion his objections to journalism as practiced in Washington.
If you read closely, you can almost glean a laugh track from the transcripts (pdf) of the oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the political lying case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. The justices sprayed gentle ridicule and subtle sarcasm on Ohio State Solicitor Eric E. Murphy as he attempted to defend a state law that bans false statements during a political campaign.
The nation’s top spy has prohibited all of his spies from talking with reporters about “intelligence-related information” unless officially authorized to speak. Intelligence Community Directive 119, signed by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper last month and made public Monday in a report by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, threatens to reduce the flow of information from the national security establishment to the press — and hence the public.
Now appearing in the Supreme Court docket: Your cell phone.
Later this month, the court will doff their robes and don their scuba gear to dive to the bottomless depths of the Fourth Amendment and determine whether police can search your mobile phone without a warrant, upon arresting you.
At the beginning of April, the New York Times launched its “Times Premier” digital offering, accessible to Times home delivery subscribers for another $10 every four weeks, on top of what they are already paying. A bewildering product, it seeks to up-sell existing Times customers to a more deluxe version of the Times.
The campaign finance decision the Supreme Court delivered Wednesday stirred all the same responses from all the same sources, with the anti-money faction bellowing that the Roberts court had now completed its plan — hatched with 2010′s Citizens United ruling — to put democracy up for sale. The pro-money crowd (to which I belong, by the way), heralded SCOTUS’s latest call as a victory for free speech.