A FREE PRESS COMES WITH REPONSIBILITIES

“Journalism is the first rough draft of history.” Phillip Graham

The United States Constitution contains both a Free Speech and Free Press clause. Together, they give us our right to “freedom of expression.”    Each clause plays a distinct and important role in protecting our democracy.

Traditionally, elected officials from both political parties had a stake in maintaining a cordial relationship with the American press.  Journalists wanted access to information that would provide timely news.  Politicians sought reporting that was friendly to their positions and wanted the voting public to believe they were being cooperative and transparent. Neither side got exactly what they wished for, but the system appeared to work. For example, following the disaster in Vietnam and crisis of Watergate, 72% of the public continued to trust the news media.

Unfortunately, when Donald Trump was elected president, everything changed. He had no reason to be cordial or cooperative with the press. He waged a war against objective news with considerable success. Trump continues to convince millions of his followers that anything they see or hear in the “non-Trump” media is false. Today, only 14% of Republicans trust the mainstream news media.

This commentary discusses two issues that consider the obligations for maintaining a free press. First, I will briefly examine some history of journalism in America, which has often not been a shining example of fairness and accuracy. Second, in today’s frenzied news environment, where disinformation and conspiracy theories run rampant, I will discuss why each us has a duty to carefully separate hard news from opinion. In order for a democracy to flourish, freedom of the press comes with both journalistic and consumer responsibilities.

Placing journalism into historical perspective shines a light on troubling past practices. Unfortunately, some bad habits have returned to our social media “sound-bite” world. Before WWII, most newspapers focused on sensationalist “yellow journalism” rather than important civic events. Accurate reporting, nonpartisanship and accountability were not goals. Eye-catching headlines that increased distribution and sales were all that mattered. In addition, the wealthy owners of each media outlet skewed the news for personal gain or for political advantage well beyond the editorial page.

Until the 1960s, journalism was a white, male oriented career. Female and Black reporters were excluded from organizations like the National Press Club. Editors did not assign Blacks or women to cover national affairs.  The Washington Post did not hired its first reporter of color until 1951.

During the cold war era, journalists often did not reveal in their reporting what they learned about national-security matters. Many were recent veterans who supported an official Washington agenda to contain Communist expansion by keeping secrets from the public.  In 1977, Carl Bernstein, who helped expose the Watergate scandal, wrote an article for Rolling Stone magazine on the relationship between the CIA and the press. His investigation discovered that since 1952 hundreds of reporters worked undercover for the spy agency. Some of the nation’s most renowned journalists were on the list. They claimed a duty to pass on to the CIA sensitive information learned on overseas assignments.

Walter Lippmann was a renowned political commentator with a career spanning 60 years. He was in the vanguard of an effort by the mainstream media to seek the pursuit of truth, along with a commitment to public responsibility. These goals have been hampered in the last two decades by a shrinking print press that has seen one in four American newspapers shutdown. The reputable news sources that are left must compete against social media and cable news networks who want to return to sensationalism or who pander to more extremist political views.  

One of my favorite journalism quotes comes from the 1947 Commission on Freedom of the Press: “It is no longer enough to report the fact truthfully. It is now necessary to report the truth about the fact.” With so many information sources refusing to follow this creed and purposefully distorting facts, each of us has a responsibility to seek out the truth with as much rigor and depth as possible.

Many of my conservative friends would disagree with my view that the New York Times and network news deliver accurate and fair reporting. However, even the most jaded right wing operative cannot deny that former Attorney General William Barr misrepresented the initial findings of the Mueller Report to the American people. Moreover, last week it was disclosed, through internal emails, that Fox news had repeatedly reported election fraud lies on its channel, knowing that the information was false.  There was internal discussion of the Fox network’s stock price trumping the truth.

Let me suggest how to escape the slanted information from cable news and dishonest officials. The free press also provides us with detailed source documents. Three examples are the 2019 Mueller Report; the Report issued the same year by the House Intelligent Committee on Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine; and the January 6 Committee Report. Granted, reading these reports takes considerable time and effort. (All are available online.) However, not doing so leaves an individual at the mercy of conflicting opinions that seek to muddy the waters.

These reports offer an excellent opportunity to become educated with corroborated factual investigations concerning the former president’s behavior and decision-making. In addition, the reports reveal what should be avoided and what requires immediate repair to keep our American experiment with the free press alive and well.