Robert M. Smith's Suppressed: A Brief Review

Suppressed: Confessions of a Former New York Times Washington Correspondent by Robert M. Smith is a provocative memoir that pulls back the curtain on American journalism, offering a candid, if polarizing, critique of media bias and institutional failures. Published in 2021, Smith, a former New York Times White House and investigative correspondent, draws on his career in the 1960s and 1970s to expose how newsrooms, particularly the Times, filter stories, often suppressing critical truths to align with editorial agendas or protect powerful interests.

Smith’s narrative is most compelling when recounting his personal arc from a naïve reporter to a disillusioned cynic. A standout anecdote is his claim to have uncovered the Watergate scandal two months before Woodward and Bernstein broke it, only for the Times to ignore it due to “conscious bias.” This revelation is a focal point of the book, underscoring Smith’s argument that editorial gatekeeping distorts public understanding. 

He also critiques the Times’ coverage of the My Lai Massacre and its reluctance to challenge corporate interests, painting a picture of a newsroom cozy with power. His later reflections on the Times’ anti-Trump bias during the 2010s argue that partisanship undermined its credibility, a point that resonates with readers skeptical of media objectivity.

The book’s strength lies in its accessible, digestible chapters, making it an engaging read for those curious about journalism’s inner workings. At times, though, I found myself wanting more. The insights were good, but not everything held my interest.

Smith’s journey—from working-class roots to Harvard, Columbia, and eventually Yale Law School—adds a personal layer, grounding his critiques in lived experience. However, the memoir’s digressive nature and broad scope sometimes sacrifices depth for breadth. It could also be argued that his heavy focus on Times shortcomings is simply a matter of sour grapes. 

Nevertheless, Suppressed is still a useful exposé for readers interested in media critique or historical journalism from an insider's perspective. Two other books by insiders that I can recommend to go with this are Bias, by Bernard Goldberg, and Reporter, by Seymour Hersh.

84% of the reviewers gave the book 5 stars on Amazon. 

Edward R Murrow: Still Relevant as Ever

Murrow, at CBS. Public domain.

“The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer.”
—Edward R. Murrow

After watching Good Night and Good Luck again recently, I dug up some of Edward R. Murrow's pithy insights on media, politics and public responsibility. (EdNote: With help from Wikiquote and ChatGPT.) 

Murrow (1908-1965) was a major influence in the early years of broadcast journalism. He cut his teeth as a war correspondent and was highly respected amongst his peers. His influence grew with the influence of television in the 1950's, due chiefly to his courage and his integrity.

Like Mencken, Chesterton and many others, his observations remain wholly relevant and timeless.

* * * 

 

Is it not possible that an unruly head of hair, an infectious smile, eyes that seem remarkable for the depths of their sincerity, a cultivated air of authority, may attract huge television audiences regardless of the violence that may be done to truth or objectivity?

--Murrow, Saturday Evening Post, 1949

* * * 

When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained. --1959

* * * 

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.”

A reminder that questioning authority or mainstream opinion is often a sign of civic strength, not betrayal—a message that resonates in polarized times. This quote brings to mind Bertrand Russell's "Free Thought and Official Propaganda" speech from a century ago.

* * * 

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

This is a warning against complacency and blind obedience. It speaks directly to issues of media literacy, discernment and civic engagement.

* * * 

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends.”

From his famous 1958 RTNDA speech about television, it is equally applicable to the internet and social media today.

* * * 

“The speed of communication is wonderful to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue.”

A prescient observation about the dangers of viral misinformation, decades before the internet and social media.

* * * 

“To be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable, we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful.”

A framework for journalism, leadership, and public discourse—especially vital in an era of “fake news” accusations. Sadly, the lack of credibility of mainstream media was on full display in its coverup of Joe Biden's mental decline. How many times were we told he was "sharp as a tack"? The phony "weapons of mass destruction" justification for overthrowing Iraq in 2003 ought to have taught us something. Are we required to believe Iran is on the verge of having nukes just because our government and media tell us so?

“Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts.”

This is a reminder that passivity or inertia in the face of hard challenges—like injustice or censorship—won’t be vindicated by future generations. I think here of the Proverb, "The complacency of fools destroys them."

“Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation.”

Murrow's dry wit was a hallmark of his reporting. Here he challenges us about the complexity of global or national crises—encouraging humility, not apathy.

“Good night, and good luck.”

Murrow's trademark sign-off.  Simple, sincere—and a quiet call for integrity in uncertain times.

Related Links
Edward R Murrow's "Wires and Lights in a Box"

Edward R Murrow Wikipedia page

The Uninformed Preaching to the Disinterested: A Lament for Modern Journalism

"Red, Black & Blue" Ink on paper.

The image of the intrepid journalist, unearthing truth and holding power accountable, has been romanticized for centuries. But in today's media landscape, a disquieting truth emerges: the "fourth estate" might be more akin to the "uninformed preaching to the uninterested."

There are any number of reasons journalism has now gotten a bad name. First, we've seen an erosion of journalistic standards that discerning media viewers have been turned off by. The talking heads have had their biases for decades, but when we (Boomer gen) were growing up the networks at least made an attempt to appear "fair" in the coverage.

Then there's the pressure for clicks and virality, which often trumps rigorous fact-checking and nuanced reporting. Echo chambers and confirmation bias reign supreme, with news outlets catering to pre-existing beliefs rather than challenging them. This creates a self-referential ecosystem where journalists preach to their own, amplifying their personal biases without engaging the wider public.

Add to this the rise of citizen journalism, blurring the lines between professional reporting and personal opinion. This is where we need to exercise discernment and fact-check before sharing. Unverified claims and emotional appeals can drown out fact-based reporting, and if you go around sharing some of that drivel, don't blame the Russians when someone else calls you out.

One consequence of this decline of local news is an information vacuum that breeds apathy and disengagement. When citizens feel disconnected from the issues and institutions that impact their daily lives, they are less likely to be interested in or actively consume news. This disinterest further fuels the perception of journalists as irrelevant and out of touch.

Dismissing all journalists as uninformed is obviously a dangerous and silly oversimplification. Many dedicated professionals strive to uphold the highest standards of ethical reporting. Investigative journalists continue to expose injustices, and thoughtful commentators provide valuable analysis and context.

The true challenge lies in bridging the gap between these dedicated professionals and a disengaged public. Clickbait headlines are not the answer.

The path forward for journalism should not be paved with lamentations, but with renewed dedication to its core principles: informing, educating, and holding power accountable. Only by regaining the public's trust and fostering a genuine interest in news can journalists reclaim their vital role in a healthy democracy.

Will it happen? It's a challenge.

* * *

Recent Tweets of Interest: Freedom of the Press at Risk? Free Speech, Too?

RANDOM PICKINGS 

1.
Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker being taken into FBI custody for his J6 reporting.

Ex-Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge being held in contempt yesterday for refusing to reveal her sources about a Chinese-American scientist investigated by the FBI but never charged.

Those who pontificate about “threats to our democracy” should take a hard look at the threats to freedom of the press.

2. This [Assange case] is a blatant attempt to send a message to real journalists that if you dare expose the darkness or the US Government then you will pay the price.

It’s a sign that tyranny is only getting worse in this country. Shame on this attack of our freedom of the press.

3.

Like the plot to a dystopian movie, New York will now monitor social media writings, collect data, and use law enforcement to crack down on any expression it deems to be hate speech.

4.

New Free Speech Gag Law in Canada: C-63

They created a Bill to fight hate without actually defining what is considered hatred. In other words, this Bill C63 will let them make anything up they want, on the fly.

5.

It's about feelings...As the MOJ David Lametti mentioned he was "feeling threatened" during the "freedom convoy" so he invoked the Emergencies Act and joked about calling in a tank...

6.

They don’t need to define what is hate speech, they just need to be the ones who decide what is hate speech. I predict that politicians speaking out against this government will be charged.

7.

Online Harms Act Will Throw Authors, Columnists and YouTubers In Prison - Bill C63

8.

Under Online Harms Act #BillC63, the government can put you under house arrest or force you to wear an ankle bracelet if someone else believes that you *will* write something hateful online in the future.

9.

Being elected does not give one authority to violate Canada's constitution. This Orwellian piece of violent totalitarianism - Bill C63 - has no place in Canada. There ought to be penalties for lawmakers who propose obvious violations of individual freedom, and "free speech".

10.

Bill c-63 is worse than imaginable It is more ridiculous than thought police #C63 #cdnpoli

11.

How does Fascism start?: First, they fascinate the fools. (Trudeau) Then they Muzzle FreeThinkers (BillC63)

12.

The first amendment protects speech you "don't" like. If it protects only speech you"do" like, then there is no free speech.

BONUS TRACK:

On Cancel Culture and Freedom of Speech -- Quotes & Tweets