News Censorship Quotes

Is the English press honest or dishonest? At normal times it is deeply dishonest. All the papers that matter live off their advertisements, and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over news. Yet I do not suppose there is one paper in England that can be straightforwardly bribed with hard cash. In the France of the Third Republic all but a very few of the newspapers could notoriously be bought over the counter like so many pounds of cheese.

The media ignores what is really going on.

The news might be single-handedly trying to bring about an environmental catastrophe, which it will then report on. Super injunctions are interesting legal weapons really, they don't just gag the press, they gag them from mentioning the existence of the gag. Sport belongs in a news bulletin about as much as a mummified cat's head belongs in a Caesar salad. Combine the "mounting pressure" with the "growing cause" and you've got yourself a "media whirlwind" which you can also refer to.

News, if unreported, has no impact. It might as well have not happened at all.

International bankers control the majority of the magazines and newspapers in this country.

I don't read the papers. I don't want to read what the press says.

The network and local TV angle of broadcast television has received a black eye for not properly debating within the news issues that should be debated, instead of shuffling them of to television advertising.

I'm tired of advertisers being the gatekeepers of what is and is not appropriate on news shows.

Secrets don't stay secrets very long, even when journalists decide to censor themselves.

The power is to set the agenda. What we print and what we don't print matter a lot.

We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States. If somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what's going to happen when they see a documentary they don't like or news reports they don't like."

I think most people aren't really privy to how stories are developed and what stories are - make it to the front page or to the mainstream media, whether it's in print or in broadcast. And I think they'd be shocked and disappointed to see some of the bias that exists in some of the stories that don't get told - or the manner in which they are told.

ABC has a general policy that you can't show images of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

One of the things that is for sure unique, we have never seen in this country a billion dollar propaganda industry in full service and in absolute control of an administration in the way that FOX News is.

When news comes out, it ought to be reported. There shouldn't be a moratorium based on legitimate news, just because it may or may not affect one candidate or the other. That's just absurd.

We can make no such promises, but if the White House wanted to request the holding of a specific story, the request would have to come from the President to the Executive Editor or the Publisher.

Keep in mind, the news media are not independent; they are a sort of bulletin board and public relations firm for the ruling class-the people who run things. Those who decide what news you will or will not hear are paid by, and tolerated purely at the whim of, those who hold economic power. If the parent corporation doesn't want you to know something, it won't be on the news. Period. Or, at the very least, it will be slanted to suit them, and then rarely followed up.

During the Gulf War, journalists used to challenge government news managers and insisted they wouldn't just accept the official version of events.

We're exposing our minors to abuse by the fact that they leave the radio on in the car and let them listen to the news on the way to school. Or the fact that it's shown on the news, the children can see Gaddafi's face and his glorious Technicolor clothes getting shot off on the news or on the newspaper shelves. In the shelves of the shops where all the sex magazines are consciously put at the top, if they're consciously put at the top, that must mean the violence is all put at the bottom consciously.

Oftentimes it feels like Fox stands alone in the media on certain stories.

The central dilemma in journalism is that you don't know what you don't know.

If Democrats don't go on Fox News, it doesn't mean that people stop watching.

TV news has largely given Trump editorial control.

Television doesn't like politics very well, if you can infer that from the way they cover it.

How united would the United States be without its newspapers?