"I think we've broken story after story that the rest of the media refused to break even when they had the story because they were scared of the story, or they just didn't think it was appropriate"
About this Quote
There’s a swagger to David Talbot’s line that doubles as an indictment: the story wasn’t missing, it was being sat on. He’s not praising scoop culture so much as accusing mainstream media of confusing caution with virtue. The repetition of “story after story” turns individual coups into a pattern, framing his outlet as the exception and the rest as an institutionally timid herd.
The intent is both self-credentialing and agenda-setting. Talbot positions his journalism as what the press likes to claim it is: adversarial, unbothered by gatekeepers’ social comfort. But the sharper subtext is about power, not bravery. “They had the story” implies access and evidence were already there; the failure was editorial will. “Scared of the story” hints at the real forces that make newsrooms flinch: legal threats, advertisers, political relationships, the fear of being iced out of future access, the career risk of being wrong in public.
Then comes the more revealing phrase: “they just didn’t think it was appropriate.” That’s Talbot calling out the soft language of suppression. “Appropriate” can mean ethical restraint, but it also becomes a respectable mask for conformity: not upsetting sources, not offending readers, not challenging a consensus that keeps the machine running. He’s arguing that a certain kind of “responsibility” is often just brand management.
Contextually, this lands in the long-running split between insurgent journalism and legacy media’s self-policing. Talbot is staking a claim that the press’s biggest failure isn’t ignorance; it’s deference dressed up as taste.
The intent is both self-credentialing and agenda-setting. Talbot positions his journalism as what the press likes to claim it is: adversarial, unbothered by gatekeepers’ social comfort. But the sharper subtext is about power, not bravery. “They had the story” implies access and evidence were already there; the failure was editorial will. “Scared of the story” hints at the real forces that make newsrooms flinch: legal threats, advertisers, political relationships, the fear of being iced out of future access, the career risk of being wrong in public.
Then comes the more revealing phrase: “they just didn’t think it was appropriate.” That’s Talbot calling out the soft language of suppression. “Appropriate” can mean ethical restraint, but it also becomes a respectable mask for conformity: not upsetting sources, not offending readers, not challenging a consensus that keeps the machine running. He’s arguing that a certain kind of “responsibility” is often just brand management.
Contextually, this lands in the long-running split between insurgent journalism and legacy media’s self-policing. Talbot is staking a claim that the press’s biggest failure isn’t ignorance; it’s deference dressed up as taste.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|
More Quotes by David
Add to List




