The writer began contributing to Above the Law in 2018 and immediately faced intense pressure from the law firm partnership over column content. The firm feared that their lawyer appearing as an opinionated, independent person would undermine its image. The dispute eased only after the writer prioritized the publishing role. The piece contrasts traditional external censorship with newer internal pressures exerted by employers and media owners who use business leverage and regulatory threats to silence critics. Corporate media consolidation and billionaire ownership can curtail critical reporting. Above the Law offers modest pay but preserves independence and integrity.
Almost immediately I began to get intensely pressured about the contents of my columns, not from anyone within ATL, but from the partnership at the law firm where I was then employed. My God, what if someone realized their lawyer wasn't the intellectual equivalent of a genital-less Ken doll and was instead a real, live person with agency who actually had opinions about things?
Gone are the days of "The Washington Post" valiantly seeking to publicize its reporters' work on the Pentagon Papers in defiance of a hostile federal government. Instead we've got the very same paper axing cartoons for being too critical of Donald Trump's media crackdown as it bleeds real journalists due to its billionaire owner's mandates in defense of rapacious capitalism.
If Trump doesn't like what Stephen Colbert has to say on his show, for instance, it's easy enough for Trump's goons to use the federal government's regulatory authority to subtly threaten the Skydance Media and Paramount Global merger until Colbert's bosses capitulate - that sort of thing.
Collection
[
|
...
]