For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing “a form of self-censorship”:

There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented.  And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck.  Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions….  And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism. 

What we are talking about here – whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not – is a form of self-censorship. 

Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:

You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble ….  You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our ….  system. 

As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central.  The threat comes from inside.  It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . . 

There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive.  There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum. 
5 Reasons that Corporate Media Coverage is Pro-War Print | War On You: Breaking Alternative News (http://waronyou.com/topics/5-reasons-that-corporate-media-coverage-is-pro-war-print/)

Algebra

12-18-2009, 08:08 AM

I've believed for a long time now that journalists dont ask the questions they want to but the questions there allowed to.  Its yet another example of governments extending there control over what people believe to be free.