I subscribe to the oxymoronically-named Ethics & Journalism newsletter. After the featured piece in today’s edition, I will be reconsidering that commitment.

Here is the beginning of the essay titled “Fostering a Culture of Newsroom Independence: How to fight anticipatory compliance,” authored by the director of this NYU project, Stephen J. Adler. Hold on to your head!

Media self-censorship, anticipatory compliance, capitulation, bending the knee. Whatever you call it, it represents one of the most insidious means by which people with power can squelch news reporting that doesn’t serve their interests. You don’t have to arrest or fire reporters—you just have to make them increasingly afraid that you will.

Donald Trump’s second term—and the ascendancy of billionaire press antagonists—has already created an environment in which journalists feel more pressure than ever to self-censor or soften their coverage to ensure that they stay on legally and politically safe ground. How does a reporter, or a newsroom full of them, guard against sheltering in such truth-killing safe harbors?

To some degree, long-standing newsroom ethical guidelines can help stiffen reporters’ spines. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics has it right: journalists should “deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors, or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.” I also like this from the Boston public media station WBUR:

“Decisions about what we cover, how we do our work, and what we report are made by our journalists. We are not influenced by those who provide WBUR with financial support.… We are not swayed in our journalistic mission by those in power or those who attempt to manipulate our journalism.’”

But even more important than adhering to ethics guidelines, I believe, is preserving the culture of journalistic independence that thrives at countless successful newsrooms and has shone at some of those now under the most pressure, such as the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and CBS News. Maintaining such a culture—and thus summoning the courage to practice independent journalism in the face of any threats—has been a hallmark of these institutions for generations….

And it goes on from there. I quit reading; my intelligence, shaky as it is, can only bear so many insults and threatened to leave the room.

Who believes that crap? Does Adler even believe it? If he does, bias has made him so stupid and blind that I’m amazed that he can tie his shoes, although maybe he has a pair those new standing-slip-on Sketchers. If he doesn’t believe what he wrote, then he is just playing the familiar role of Axis journalist propagandist, and is a partisan liar. I do not care to hear what a partisan liar has to say in defense of our corrupt and dishonest journalism. Nobody should.

Seriously, CBS? A culture of independence? This guy has the brass to point to that network after its openly slanted debate moderation during the campaign, its attempt to drag Kamala Harris across the finish line with its “60 Minutes” manipulation of her interview, and the serial embarrassments suffered by “Face the Nation” hack Margaret Brennan? The Washington Post? THE WASHINGTON POST??? (Wait, I have to put my anti-head-explosion helmet on). Almost the entire staff rebelled when the paper decided not to endorse Kamala Harris, who had as much business being President as post-IQ drain as Joe Biden! And naturally, the author sides with poor little AP, which in 2020 engaged in the signature significance of banning the term “illegal immigrant,” something nobody but a knee-jerk, woke, open-borders advocate would do. Lately it has balked at calling the Gulf of Mexico what its own nation officially calls it: I have concluded that making an issue out of the “Gulf of America” name change is a positive test result for Trump Derangement.

How can anyone expect useful, valid and objective journalism ethics commentary from a publication that is dedicated to gaslighting its readers? I know I can’t.