Some Quick Thoughts This Morning on the State of Journalism
My Conversation with SEEN in Publishing
Friends,
I wanted to share a new interview I did with SEEN in Publishing because it gave me the chance to talk about something that has been on my mind for a long time: why straightforward, evidence-based journalism now feels rarer than it should.
Over the years, I have reported on subjects as different as the Kennedy assassination, the opioid epidemic, Vatican finances, and, more recently the medicalization of children under the banner of gender medicine. Different stories, different stakes, different worlds. But the method has always required the same discipline. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Do not begin with a preferred conclusion. Do not tailor the facts to fit an approved narrative. Do the reporting first, and accept where it takes you.
That ought to be the most ordinary description of journalism imaginable. Instead, it increasingly feels like the standard of a bygone era.
Too much reporting today is shaped before the real work even begins. Some stories are softened while others are narrowed. Some are never pursued at all. Not because the facts are weak, but because the subject is judged too controversial, too sensitive, or too costly to touch honestly.
That is a serious loss. Not only for journalism, but for the public.
The biggest threat is often not censorship in the formal sense. It is the quieter, more pervasive habit of self-censorship inside institutions. It is the fear of backlash or the possible reputational damage by stepping outside the boundaries of what is considered safe to say. And once that fear takes hold, journalism begins to lose its purpose.
Real investigative reporting is not supposed to be comfortable. It is supposed to test claims, challenge assumptions, and examine what powerful people or fashionable institutions would rather leave unexamined. It is slow work, often frustrating, but it is still the work that matters most.
That is what this interview is really about. It is also, in many ways, the heart of the work Trisha Posner and I have tried to do for a long time.
I hope you will read it and send me some feedback.
Here is my conversation with SEEN in Publishing:
Best,
Gerald
I used to work in mainstream media in Canada. Back then, we talked about pursuing facts without fear or favour.
I believe that one problem is that once newsrooms began to embrace EDI, they gave some groups of journalists who have an agenda a wide berth to determine what does and doesn’t get covered. So normal questions about gender affirming care for children, such as “What’s the evidence that this helps?” and “What’s the potential for harm?”, are deemed transphobic. Then the whole topic is ignored.
It all reminds me of Ayn Rand's laments: that society is more interested in opining than "doing". Unfortunately, people can make a living opining rather than doing, and it's certainly less work. To put an end to it, we have to stop financially rewarding people for having an opinion.