Alan Greenblatt writes:

The censorship you never hear about may be the worst, or at least the most insidious. Thankfully, many journalists are speaking out at a crucial moment for the press. Virtually every major outlet refused the Pentagon’s edict that they publish or broadcast only information handed to them by the Department of Defense (which the administration calls the Department of War). And there have been several other examples just in recent days of journalists leaving their jobs in response to censorship pressures.

Let me add my name to that list. Until Oct. 10, I was the editor of Governing, a magazine and website covering state and local governments. But after facing increasing internal censorship pressures — largely to avoid critical coverage of President Donald Trump — I refused to go along, and I resigned.

My decision was a long time coming. Earlier this year, the chief content officer for our parent company, e.Republic, stated in a meeting that we should not run articles that could draw the attention of the Trump White House and have them try to shut us down.

At the time, her position struck me as wrong in a couple of ways. Chiefly, there was the obvious betrayal of journalistic ethics. Secondly, however, Governing is such a small (although I’d like to say prestigious) publication that the idea anyone in the current White House was reading it, let alone preparing to hammer it, struck me as dubious.

Governing was started nearly 40 years ago by editors from Congressional Quarterly who thought state policy should get more news coverage. Even after it was bought in 2009 by e.Republic, Governing remained one of the few outlets to pay continuous attention to governments outside of Washington. It often receives compliments such as being called “the Rolling Stone of state of the state addresses.” It’s a wonky publication, and it’s not huge, but it has a sterling reputation for covering a crucial niche.

The notion that the litigious Trump would hit us with a lawsuit was not impossible, but it was unlikely. We certainly weren’t reliant on federal contracts to stay afloat. But after Trump’s second term began, the corporate anxiety about rocking the boat with our coverage became a constant.

That’s one of the saddest parts of Trump’s anti-media drive. After the government has gone after the big guys — Trump has engaged in court fights this year with CBS, ABC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, not to mention defunding NPR, my former employer — the little guys too often decide they lack the resources to stand up. Capitulation becomes the easier course.

We’ve seen this happen in other countries. Self-censorship is particularly damaging because it takes place in private; in the absence of photos of reporters walking out of the Pentagon, no one even knows it’s happened. And individuals and institutions do a more thorough job of stifling themselves than governments ever could. Not knowing where the line might be, they grow hyper-cautious and shy away from publishing anything that might cause offense.

In my role as editor of Governing, I received edicts from above throughout this year warning me to stay away from a variety of topics. For example, I was told that an article about attitudes toward vaccines caused “consternation” among the higher ups because that issue has become partisan. I warned my boss that if we weren’t going to reflect reality — if we weren’t going to do journalism — I’d have to quit. [Continue reading…]