Should a journalist stay or leave when newsroom management appears to be making editorial decisions for political, financial, or other non-journalistic reasons?
The question has arisen dramatically at CBS’s 60 Minutes, of course, but also in recent years at The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, among others. Just last week, tech journalist Kara Swisher announced she will leave CNN if the acquisition by Paramount, already owners of CBS, goes through.
At a time of intense economic and political pressures on newsrooms, the question – to leave or not to leave – is likely to pop up with increasing frequency. Naturally, a journalist’s answer is going to depend mightily on the circumstances, so my goal here is merely to provide some guidance on how to think about the issue.
Let’s consider several contexts in which this issue may arise:
Situation 1: A story of your own — whether as reporter or editor – has fallen victim to interference that you are confident isn’t editorially driven but instead results from political or financial considerations. This is essentially what Scott Pelley said happened to him at 60 Minutes, in an especially explosive example.
My two takes:
- If anyone in management compels a material change in the journalist’s work for any non-journalistic reason, I can’t see how the journalist can remain at the news organization. Allowing the publication of work that you know to be flawed or erroneous is a quick way to kill your own reputation. You shouldn’t let that happen.
- If the reporter ends up not making the demanded changes, or reaching a compromise they can live with, it depends on how often this kind of pressure is applied. I might stay after one or two such incidents in the hope that I could continue to push back effectively, but I would probably leave if pressure of this sort reached a tipping point and became routine. Such pressure is, over the long run, insidious; it undermines morale, threatens the independence of the newsroom, and incentivizes self-censorship.
What’s your take?
Situation 2: Management has inappropriately interfered with a story by a colleague, rather than by you.
My take: The same rules apply, as above, if you trust your colleague’s version of events. In any era, newsrooms must maintain a culture of editorial independence, and that can’t be preserved if editorial integrity is being eroded for any member of that team. Solidarity in the interests of press freedom is a must, whether within newsrooms or among them. For instance, when the AP was barred from White House briefings in February 2025, I believe that every reporter for every news organization should have walked out immediately – and stayed out until the AP was readmitted.
What’s your take?
Situation 3: Your newsroom boss is fighting for editorial independence though not prevailing against some instances of interference with journalists’ news decisions.
My take: This is the state of play at some publications right now. In my own experience as editor-in-chief of Reuters, our sister financial business attempted in 2019 to block Reuters coverage that China considered offensive. I went on the record with my opposition; Reuters covered the attempted censorship and declined to mute any of its China reporting. My immediate bosses made clear that they were on my side. The financial business continued to prevent some of our coverage from reaching customers inside China, but, appreciating the management support and persisting in our coverage if not controlling its distribution, I stayed.
Ultimately, the stay-or-leave decision depends on which side prevails in the internal press-freedom fight and whether, leadership opposition or no, any interference continues. Nonetheless, support from the boss is certainly a factor in favor of continuing to give the job a chance.
You’re on the news team when the owner changes a decision of the editorial board, which doesn’t report to the editor-in-chief but to the publisher. This was the situation, famously, at the LA Times and The Washington Post, when the respective owners nixed endorsements of Kamala Harris before the 2024 election. Many editorial staffers resigned at both publications, but the issue was more complex for people on the news side. Some who stayed argued that the editorial page had always belonged to the owner and that, as long as newsroom independence wasn’t undermined, it was important to stay and do the important journalism that needed to be done.
My take: I sympathize with the reporters who stayed because there has never been a more important time to report on the workings of government and to hold the powerful to account. As long as they were able to do that, they had a mission to fulfill. I respect that.
However, I’m not sure what I would have done under the circumstances. Because the separation between news and editorial is virtually invisible online and on social media, I might have felt as if the integrity of the brand had been so seriously corrupted that I could no longer associate myself with it. Tough one.
What’s your take?
Finally, one consideration that can’t be ignored in any of these instances: Can the journalist afford to quit?
Some of my former students have struggled with this question. One was assigned to eavesdrop on celebrities and report on what they said without seeking their comment or identifying as a reporter. While I hoped this reporter could find a way to question the assignment or alter its terms, I had a hard time counseling the former student to quit immediately, given the financial pressures the individual faced. I suggested looking for work someplace that didn’t make such demands but not necessarily resigning – and thus possibly dampening future opportunities – until finding such a job. I still don’t know if that was the right advice. The reporter eventually moved on.
For those less financially fortunate than 60 Minutes correspondents, I can understand how challenging these decisions can be. In my first job, I proposed a story idea only to be told that the topic was off-limits because of certain business interests of the publisher. I was twenty-two, earning less than $10,000 a year, and determined to make it as a reporter. I stayed put and certainly don’t regret it.
Yet there have to be some circumstances where even a 22-year-old in our struggling profession has to resign. I suggest these red lines:
– I wouldn’t stay if my piece was rendered inaccurate or unfair and published against my wishes.
– I wouldn’t stay if forced to protect or malign a political figure in contravention of the facts and to the benefit of the publisher.
– I wouldn’t stay if required to favor or disfavor a particular business or its CEO for non-journalistic reasons.
– I wouldn’t stay if told to lie.
Journalism, done right, is a noble pursuit. The work matters. But there are other jobs within the field and even, when ethics are at stake, other lines of work.
Teaching, too, is an honorable profession.
Have additional thoughts? Think we’re missing something? Email us to keep the conversation going.