Russell Baker Quotes

Publishing is a business, but journalism never was and is not essentially a business. Nor is it a profession.

Journalism: A profession whose business is to explain to others what it personally does not understand.

I cover media people the way they cover politicians.

I don't love the media. I'm part of it, but you can't love a porcupine.

So often on CNN, there's a world-class journalist interviewing campaign rejects and ideologues and silly, craven people who do not care about informing people, that aren't there to help people understand what's going on in the news.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the average American newspaper, even of the so-called better sort, is not only quite as bad as Upton Sinclair says it is, but 10 times worse, 10 times as ignorant, 10 times as unfair and tyrannical, 10 times as complaisant and pusillanimous, and 10 times as devious, hypocritical, disingenuous, deceitful, pharisaical, Pecksniffian, fraudulent, slippery, unscrupulous, perfidious, lewd and dishonest.

You don’t have journalists over there anymore, what they have is public relations people. That’s what they have over in America now. Two-hundred and fifty thousand people in public relations. And a dwindling number of actual reporters and journalists.

We define journalism in America as the business and practice of presenting the news of the day in the interest of economic privilege.

Look at this Judith Miller thing. Isn't that problematic? Like, she's getting fed information from the White House and she's feeding it to her editors and then it's in the Times and then the people at the White House can quote themselves? And it's the New York Times!

American journalism (like the journalism of any other country) is predominantly paltry and worthless. Its pretensions are enormous, but its achievements are insignificant.

I just don't understand why people decide to be journalists if they're not willing to investigate hard-hitting news stories.

Anyone who faults Romney or Obama or any public figure for demanding quote approval is missing the point. The journalists were no abused weaklings here. They made a bargain for access to these newsworthy figures that they thought was in their favor - they're only complaining because they got caught.

Understanding how the media actually works is critical. Because editors depend on ignorance and media illiteracy to ply their trade. The fact that many readers expect fact checking, editorial oversight, and ethics actually makes it easier for the media to be lazy.

Media bias in editorials and columns is one thing. Media fraud in reporting 'facts' in news stories is something else. ...The issue is not what various journalists or news organizations' editorial views are. The issue is the transformation of news reporting into ideological spin, along with self-serving taboos and outright fraud.

If you look at the New York Times, it says X; if you look at the Washington Post, it says the same thing. And if you turn on any television newscast it's the same thing you already heard, that's research. And that's one of the ways it's done. Authority ends up being imputed simply because of volume. I mean, all of these different news organizations reporting the exact same thing.

News reports stand up as people, and people wither into editorials. Clichés walk around on two legs while men are having theirs shot off.

Newspapers have roughly the same relationship to life as fortune-tellers to metaphysics.

There are those who believe a liberal or a conservative bias permeates the media. I don't. The operative press bias is one that favors conflict, not ideology, and it is lashed by a market-driven bias to boost ratings or circulation with more wow stories, more sizzle.

I think what we try to do is bring the news to our viewers in a very comprehensive responsible way.

A big part of my book deals with the caliber of journalism. Our journalism in general is deplorable, and on elections in particular it's very ineffectual. There are a lot of problems, a lot of them having to do with to problems within the professional code of journalism, which defines its role as the regurgitation of what people in power say. Another big problem is that we allow people with money to basically buy what's talked about in campaigns through running TV ads.

The hired journalist, I thought, ought to realize that he is partly in the entertainment business and partly in the advertising business - advertising either goods, or a cause, or a government. He just has to make up his mind whom he wants to entertain, and what he wants to advertise.

Journalism is often simply the industrialisation of gossip.

When the media gets into creating their own product and then deciding to cover it, they are becoming part of the process and, therefore, could be damaged.

Newspapers should have no friends.

I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel.