Freedom of the Press

Yesterday I discussed one of the main areas protected by the First Amendment, freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Today I would like to touch on freedom of the press, another topic so prevalent in our national debates.

I know its is fashionable to opine as if we know exactly what our founders meant or were addressing with their experiment in democracy.  We cherry pick quotes from one of those great minds to justify whatever particular aspect of our notions for which we need verification, even when the other side can quote another founder whose words seem to exactly contradict our perspective.

Yet we also seem to forget the unique times of the early 1770's.  We were a colony, not a country.  Our laws regarding free speech and a free press were dictated by a country thousands of miles away, a trip which was fraught filled, often resulting in illness and death.  Troops, not of our own people, were garroted in our cities, upholding the laws which seemed to ignore the rights of the colonists in favor of the English.  Being able to say in public or publish articles which were negative about the government across the ocean was difficult.  The simple act of discussing independence could be hazardous to one's welfare, not to mention what would have happened to the founders who encouraged separation, had the effort failed.  Certain death in a not so pleasant way.

Men who had understood the writings of those who laid the foundation of real freedoms, rights which did not depend upon birth right or divine interpretation, could now see the potential of the New World, and determined that true freedoms required specific guarantees, recognized by a government for the people.  Such amazing ideas.

So, freedom of the press, for me, is all about media which respects the people of America to such a degree that their welfare is more important than the leaders who make the decisions.  Which also means questioning our government, from the right when the government leans to far left, and from the left when the government leans to far right.  

It means investigating a minor break-in at a Washington hotel, even if it means the resignation of a president.  Or following the story about a sexual encounter in the White House, even if it means impeachment of a president.  Or reporting the various machinations of a campaign in which many of the players, family as well as hired hands, were willing to do anything to change history, even if that means the indictment of a sitting president.

Attacking the press for doing these deeds, because one voted for the president in power is an attack on the freedom of the press, and therefore a rejection of the founders' beliefs.  This is not to say that I don't understand it, and have even engaged in such activity myself.  I would like to think that the incessant attacks on Fox opinion shows and some news shows during the Obama Administration were evaluated by myself with an eye towards discerning when an attack was legitimate, when Obama made mistakes in policy or action, and when those opinions merely reflected other reasons, such as deep-seated racism, not real policy disagreements.

Likewise, I would like to think that when I watch a report on MSNBC which is critical of President Trump, I view it with a desire for facts.  I look for interviews and guests which discuss both sides of the report, perhaps even with a sense of doubt of a negative report right up until the time when the facts are overwhelming.  

Certainly, this is not an easy task for me when confronting articles which portray Trump in a negative light since I disagree with him on the vast majority of his policies, just as it is for a supporter of our president who prefers not to research those problems with the Trump agenda.

The good news is that we know the players.  We know that Fox will generally paint everything happening in a way complimentary to President Trump while MSNBC will do the opposite.  The problem isn't knowing that these biases exist, it is in not recognizing them and then doing some thinking and researching on one's own to verify any one story.

In a sense, freedom of the press is incumbent upon the reader.  If we seek to read only what confirms our beliefs, and eschew those which challenge our preconceptions then we are discouraging, even working against this important freedom.

But, as I indicated in my last post, what do we do about publications that are not interested in publishing truth, but wantonly publish articles or express opinions on social media that they know to be false.  I had mentioned that I was not happy with a recent decision by Twitter to suspend the account of Alex Jones due to their belief that his tweets were lies.
If Alex truly believes that the Sandy Hook massacre did not occur, as he has so often stated, then he has every right to state his opinion, on his show or on twitter.  Perhaps it is idealistic to think, but my hope is that as time passes, his opinions will be shown to be worthless; that the facts will bury the reason for those who encourage him by listening to his words.  

But, there is some who believe that Jones knows his assertions about Sandy Hook are lies, and that he does it for notoriety, for money, for influence among the really far right person who disbelieves everything that shows our lack of common sense gun laws in a bad light.

He peddles lies for profit, or at least that is what the CEO of Twitter has decided by giving him a time out.  Jones will continue to express himself on his show, as is his right.  A more permanent solution will only come when the listeners of his show stop listening.

So again, it comes back to responsible speech.  And, even more critically, how we define responsible.  Is it responsible to publish negative reports of a president even when those true reports might lead to temporary uncertainty and lack of confidence in our government, perhaps even some financial distress?  Or is it more responsible to suppress or even attack those articles as unpatriotic or bad for the American people?  I know how I feel, and would like to think that the founders would prefer the former over the latter.

Even worse, if one can believe the recent revelations about the National Enquirer, is a publisher that uses his newspaper to attack those he disagrees with, either politically or personally, while keeping the secrets of those he is friendly with for future "negotiations".

It is still too early to tell how much influence President Trump had over the various negative articles about Hillary Clinton which ran in the Enquirer before the election, or if it was just another way that David Pecker expressed loyalty to his friend, Donald Trump.  Regardless however, if Pecker knew the stories about Clinton were lies, and knew the stories he purchased and buries about Trump to be true, he was in violation of the spirit of the right to freedom of the press.  

I failed to end my post yesterday with my biggest fear regarding the erosion of our freedoms, both speech and of the press, due to our inability to distinguish truth from lie, and our seemingly lack of concern to do so.  I fear we are witnessing, like a slow drip from a leaky faucet, the decline of our experiment in democracy, hence the foundation of our country.  It is a sad cliche that most great civilizations declined and fell from within.  Hopefully these signs are warnings which will inspire change, not the breadcrumbs which will lead to the inevitable fall.