HOME PAGE | ABOUT US | COLLABORATORS | SEARCH GIRAFFE PROFILES | BLOG RESOURCE SITE | CONTACT US | SUPPORT US | REPORT A SIGHTING Last Updated: Oct 12th, 2007 - 21:58:21

A-VERBATIM-Interview Q&As
Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman on self-censorship, raising questions, and who is really 'advocacy journalism'?
By MGP Staff (transcription)
Dec 12, 2005, 01:03

The following is an extended verbatim transcript from an April 11, 2004  radio interview of Amy Goodman, host of the Democracy Now! daily one-hour newsmagazine on Pacifica, NPR, college, community radio and TV stations and on cable and satellite.  Goodman was interviewed by Robert McChesney, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Goodman is also co-author with her brother of the book, "Exception to the Rulers."

LISTEN:    Real Audio stream   /   MP3 download

ON SELF-CENSORSHIP

" . . . censorship is not as simple as, although occasionally it happens, it is not as simple as an editor or a publisher saying, 'You will not tell this side of the story.'  It's much more subtle and it involves self censorship. It involves reporters in a newsroom knowing at a news meeting when they are suggesting stories what's going to get them marginalized and what's going to help them to rise in the corporate media ladder.

"And if you are there and you are pushing to cover the peace movement and others look at you and say, 'the what movement?'  you realize what is going to get you ahead and who isn't. You know that when you take on a tough story like who's profiting from war in Iraq or the relationship between those in the government and those in the corporations that are really making a killing in Iraq, that your editor or publisher could well get a call from someone very high up in government. And you're going to hear about it.

"Now if you were to cover, and I'm saying say cover critically for example the peace movement, you don't have to worry that some grassroots activist will even get a chance to speak to an editor or publisher that that person would even take their call. You are not going to get called in the carpet in the same way.

ON RAISING QUESTIONS

"And I think it is very important to raise these questions, and to continually critique the media because it gives people space inside, the more pressure they are getting from the outside, for those brave ones inside who want to do the work that they believe they went into the newspaper or the TV or the radio business for, and it's not a business, it's a mission.

"There's a reason why journalism is the only professional that is protected by the U.S. Constitution, because we are a check and balance on those in power. We are an essential part of the function of a democracy society and when we no longer serve as that check and balance, when we merge with the government, when we act as state media, that endangers a democratic society, not to mention doing a disservice to the service men and women of this country who can't raise questions on military bases but  rely on us in civil society to raise the most important issues of the day.

ON ‘ADVOCACY JOURNALISM’

"I always say when someone says, 'You're engaged in advocacy journalism' that the corporate reporters are my model. I mean, have you ever seen more cheerleading for one point of view -- especially now.  And this is around the most important issues of our day -- war and peace, life and death. Cheerleader for war.

 "I was quite surprised, actually, when I went on Charlie Rose. It was the morning a Washington Post profile came out. The reporter had come to the Democracy Now! studios and they did a piece called, "Peace correspondent." And it was a very positive piece. And the Charlie Rose called up and asked would I come over within an hour and they would like to do an interview and they were going to run it in the next few days. And so I went over.

"The first question that Charlie Rose asked me is he said where do you broadcast. This was at the beginning of the interview. And I said oh, we broadcast on over 200 Pacifica and NPR radio stations, community stations, university stations, as well as public-access TV stations, PBS and video and audio stream at DemocracyNow.org and on satellite and DISH network, which is Channel 9415, Free Speech TV, four times a day.

"And just as I'm saying it now, I'm smiling too, because it sounded like an ad, and this is not the way it works on the Charlie Rose show. But he asked.  So, I said, this is all to say that we are engaged in the largest public media collaboration in this country, and we need independent media. And I didn't think that was very controversial. It was more just saying where we broadcast.

TAKING UMBRAGE

"And he took great umbrage, offense, really and said what is that supposed to mean, as if the rest isn't independent. And he went on to say these were his friends. He specifically said Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, what are you trying to say about them, they are my friends, he said. He said the argument I have with respect  is Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, a whole ran of people are journalists who've paid their dues, they are very competent journalists. They have paid their dues. They are reporting for those magazines and broadcasts.

"And I said it is not just about one person. And he said you are suggesting that because they choose the people. I said, let me quote Dan Rather himself on BBC. He says he thinks he would be necklace, he thinks he cannot and simply as the hard questions that need to be asked.  I'm quoting Dan Rather. And he went on to say he doubted he would say, that he was surprised he would say something like that because he is his colleague.  He said in fact he didn't believe he said that because they are independent. And I said, well you don't have to take it from me. Take it from him.

 "It was very uncharacteristic for Charlie Rose. It made me realize afterward how few times he has someone on he disagrees. Because people were shocked at how confrontational he was.  In fact his website got hit extremely hard with all of his viewers, not our viewers, saying he should apologize. And very interestingly, many of them sending the BBC transcript of Dan Rather saying that he thought he would be necklaced if he raised hard questions in this country. 

"And I think a lot of people know that there is something terribly wrong.  Now that the weapons of mass destruction haven't been found, people are saying, "Wait a second, how did the media get it so wrong? And what is the role of the media?"  To quote the title of John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton's book: Is it really becoming a weapon of mass deception.  These are the questions we have to ask and this is why we need an independent media in this country."

Source: Media Matters website.