In a recent symposium held at Georgetown University, the state of journalism took center stage as discussions delved into the core challenges facing the media today. Erik Wemple, a media critic at the Washington Post, offered a rare moment of candidness when he pinpointed a critical issue: the persistent reluctance of journalists to apologize for their mistakes. This admission casts a spotlight on a deep-seated problem that has eroded trust in the media landscape.
Wemple’s remarks underscore the emotional attachment that news organizations develop toward their stories. With countless hours of labor and multiple layers of editing and legal scrutiny, admitting errors becomes a Herculean task. This difficulty in conceding fault was starkly illustrated by the infamous Rolling Stone’s false gang rape story at UVA, which took months to retract despite clear evidence of its inaccuracies. Such stubborn resistance to acknowledge mistakes lays bare the wider media crisis, characterized by a refusal to correct the narrative and an obstinate clinging to flawed reporting.
Historically, the media had a semblance of honor, where acknowledging mistakes and issuing apologies were integral to journalistic integrity. The case of Richard Jewell in 1996 serves as a telling example. Wrongly accused as a suspect in the Atlanta Olympics bombing, Jewell’s life was upended by relentless media scrutiny. However, in an uncommon display of integrity, CNN producer Henry Schuster issued a public apology, acknowledging the profound impact of the erroneous coverage on Jewell’s life.
Fast forward to today, and such acts of contrition are virtually non-existent. Examples abound: from the Russiagate debacle to the vilification of the Covington Catholic students Brett Kavanaugh and Kyle Rittenhouse to the child maligned for face paint at a Kansas City Chiefs game. Each instance showcases a troubling trend of media outlets refusing to accept responsibility or show remorse for the damage caused by their reports.
In stark contrast to CNN’s Schuster, modern journalists appear devoid of the introspection necessary for a genuine apology. Figures such as Taylor Lorenz of the Washington Post and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC epitomize this departure from responsible journalism, highlighting a shift from accountability to overt partisanship and sensationalism.
This drift can be traced back to the media’s intoxication with the Watergate scandal, a watershed moment that instilled in journalists a sense of power and invulnerable righteousness. The ensuing decades saw the press attempting to replicate the heady triumph of the 1970s, often at the expense of accuracy and ethics. This relentless pursuit of the next big scandal has transformed journalism from a noble profession to a means of exerting undue influence and achieving personal fame, akin to an unchecked addiction.
The crux of the problem lies in the media’s inability to confront its failures. Media outlets continue to lose credibility without acknowledging the deep-seated issues plaguing their ranks. The need for self-examination and the humility to apologize are more critical than ever if journalism is to restore its standing.
As the debate over the media’s role and responsibility continues, this issue remains a deficit in the integrity of an industry that fundamentally shapes public opinion and trust. The path forward requires a return to basics: truth, accountability, and the willingness to admit when wrong, fostering a media environment that deserves the trust and respect of the public it serves.
