> “I don’t want the reporters I’m paying to write a bad story about me,” he said on Radio Iowa. “I don’t want them to be independent.”
Did I read that right? “Don’t want them to be independent”
What’s the point of journalism then?
Did I read that right? “Don’t want them to be independent”
What’s the point of journalism then?
Henderson then pressed the ex-mayor on how Bloomberg media would cover him during a campaign. The billionaire said he had already engaged in discussions about the issue with Bloomberg’s head of news, John Micklethwait.
“We’ve always had a policy that we don’t cover ourselves. I happen to believe, in my heart of hearts, you can’t be independent and nobody’s going to believe that you’re independent,” he said.
“And quite honestly, I don’t want the reporters I’m paying to write a bad story about me! I don’t want them to be independent. So you’re going to have to do something,” he added with a laugh.
Bloomberg said his companies would either completely divest from political coverage or pepper news with frequent disclaimers about ownership.
(From https://www.thewrap.com/mike-bloomberg-says-hell-sell-his-me...)
I agree wholeheartedly that it’s a positive move to abstain from political coverage when your majority stakeholder is running for office. However, the messaging doesn’t sit right with me.
Even if you can’t be truly independent, you should still strive for integrity.
Vertically EVERYBODY with a conflict of interest will put their finger on the scale given enough opportunity.
Expect others to believe you are striving for integrity and journalistic independence?
I don’t reckon that’s going going to work.
Better off, in my opinion, to be honest about it.
It's a difficult choice. I would have liked him to say that Bloomberg Media should be free to write pieces showing his shortcomings - but its not very realistic of me to expect that.
I'm not sure if I would have the same opinion - but his PoV sounds very human. I'm not sure if I would have liked my employees causing issues for me either, if I was in his position.
Today most Americans, learned and unlearned, are significantly more cynical, habituated to reject the idea that independent, objective, professional journalism could exist. Regardless of the philosophical truth, what's certainly true as a practical matter is that it cannot exist even aspirationally unless we believe it can exist.
One guy in my home town came back a serial killer and started murdering women. Others formed gangs or killed themselves or harmed their families. There is real journalism out there still.
Edit: Well I said that before someone dug up the context. Makes more sense that way. Still leaving this comment here.