Free Press? What’s That?
We’ve all had to think lately about fake news, about misinformation, and government obstruction of the press. It hasn’t always been this way. I remember when the news was limited to tv news, radio, newspapers and news magazines. With the evolution of news, to online news delivery, we have seen a new era of news consumption. We used to get our news from limited sources — radio, print, television, and limited news outlets.
Now, the landscape has expanded to include special interest and intentionally biased reporting, seated alongside credibly recognized news and media outlets. Technology has expanded our ability to get information from a variety of news sources, but it has also introduced biased “news” in the form of ad-hoc media outlets. This has all made me question why free media exists. What does the “free” in “free press” mean?
I have spent the last 5 months, heck maybe the last 3.5 years watching the federal administration erode one of the basic constitutional tenets we have as citizens: the right to have a free press hold our elected officials accountable to the public. We have been confined to our homes, forced to receive news from limited sources and sift through conspiracy theories, social media memes and conjecture to decipher what news is credible and what is not. Real journalism is getting lost in the noise created and fueled by our commander-in-chief.
He’s not alone. I’ve seen elected Senators be asked about what the President said or did, and claim they hadn’t heard, or just ignore the question and walk away. Their refusal to answer to the people, through the press, should be infuriating to every tax payer in the country.
In the midst of a global pandemic, our free election is in danger of being tampered with, and the United States Postal Service hangs in the balance. Why should we worry about the press? Moreover, even when the pandemic ends and things are back to “normal”, why should we continue to care?
So many questions. In an effort to silence some of that noise let’s examine what the “free press” is, what it means to us, and why it is important for all Americans to care about the quality and standards to which our news must adhere.If we lose the ability to have quality journalists report on the news with freedom and impunity, it stands to reason Americans will lose more than they can imagine . Because we are in a pandemic, and I’m mostly home, the prudent thing to do would be to conduct an interview with myself. Me, a former Journalism student, turned IT professional, turned side hustle journalist (interviewer) and me, the technology nerd turned political activist and fierce defender of civil rights. Duh. It’s probably not normal, but not much is right now, so why not?
Interviewer (me): We have the 1st amendment which protects the press and guarantees the right to a free press — What does that mean, that we have a free press? Why are you so adamant about the need for Americans to care about the press, when it’s constitutionally guaranteed?
Courtney (also me): Even our founders knew that while the 3 branches of government needed to check and balance each other, the people needed a free press to check all of government. The press is meant to be a non-governmental source for information on what the government and our elected officials are doing and saying. They were to be what is called the fourth estate.
The free part of a free press is how we can have reporting of our government, that can dissent and disagree with the government. They are protected in our democracy, from government oversight, approval, and censorship. The press ensures that voters can be informed, by an entity that is not of the government, but one that can check the government. They are meant to be truth tellers, and they are meant to speak truth to power.
Interviewer (me): How has the role of the press changed in our history?
Courtney (also me): The press was one of the ways our colonies revolted against Britain. The act of dissenting with the crown in print, was part of the revolution(https://americanantiquarian.org/earlyamericannewsmedia/exhibits/show/age-of-revolution).
By the time of the Civil War, American newspapers were completely political. They took a stance in the politics of the day (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-newspapers-reported-the-civil-war-17280757/?page=1).
In 1927 Congress enacted the Radio Act, requiring that the FCC only grant broadcast licenses that were in the interest of the public. The FCC expanded this in 1949 with the Fairness Doctrine. It was revoked in 1987, and many blame that for the resurgence of partisan news (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html).
The internet has paved the way for that partisan news to not just propagate, but be spread around, like gossip. Anyone could be a journalist, as you well know. Paywalls would keep quality journalism for those who could afford it, and the free press took on a different meaning for Americans.
Interviewer (me): But you’re not saying paywalls created fake news are you? People still pay for newspapers and magazines, right?
Courtney (also me): Absolutely. Fake news was not something thrown at all media, until recently. Trump seized on the damaging narrative of “fake news” during the 2016 election, and has denigrated what is known as the fourth estate. He did not do this alone. The press had their own part to play, as did the people, including people who serve in our government. We are all culpable, in allowing our press to become a mouthpiece for gaslighting and twisted narratives.
Yes, people are expected to pay for a print copy of the news, but they can still watch the news on tv, or hear it on the radio. Online, if people can’t get past a paywall, they will just go to sites that don’t have a paywall. What does that do to the way voters are informed, or rather misinformed, about what is going on in the world? From what I can see, nothing good.
Interviewer (me): How are the consumers of news to blame? It’s not like they write the news. They didn’t choose to employ Jeffrey Lord on CNN, or interview Kellyanne Conway after she called the Trump administration’s lies “alternative facts”.
Courtney (also me): Sure, but what did we do? We consumed it. We shared it. We used it as the basis of our arguments that shape our ideology and how we vote. If we know something is false or not completely true, but we consume it without any rebuttal, how are we not to blame? If we do not vet the information, how are we not part of the problem? We watch it, and replay it, and share it, and spread it around. We help it go from a fledgling affront, to accepted reality. We give it legs, and help it walk. Even if the news isn’t completely true, but makes us feel good, then that will be enough.
Interviewer (me): Do individual people, consumers of the media, really have that big an impact?
It seems small. We retweeted false info. Maybe we didn’t know it was false. Maybe we didn’t care. Maybe we knew some of it was false or questionable, but it still helped us make a point or make a joke out of it. The problem is that those spreading the lies, are still getting their lies out there. We give them air supply. If we are going to elevate a lie, or something is misleading, we have a responsibility to correct the lie, and ensure we promote the truth, not the lie. We can show what a joke the assertion is, but we have to make sure we effectively call out lies and false narratives.
In order to combat the many half truths and falsehoods that are reported as news today, people need to be able to identify gaslighting. Gaslighting is an abusive tool used to manipulate not only facts, but those who would attempt to correct false statements and rhetoric. There are many ways gaslighting is used against people in arguments (11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting).
Interviewer (me): That makes sense, but I have to believe that journalists like myself have a responsibility too, no?
Courtney (also me): Absolutely. Journalists have a duty to hold up the fourth estate, and it is not an easy task. In fact, it’s incredibly difficult. Anyone who thinks it’s easy to call out a lie on the spot, has likely never tried to do it in front of a live audience.
Interviewer (me): You’re telling me!
Courtney: I can’t imagine what a challenge that must be for you. Nevertheless, there is no point in being a journalist if all you will do is carry poison water. If an interviewee lies or states something that is not true, the rest of the interview will be worthless. This is the hardest decision to make. There are many things to cover, but nothing of substance will be covered, if at first there is not a requirement that the truth must be reported. That has to be the bar for the entire interview, or any piece of news.
Interviewer (me): How can average people combat this problem in needing our press to not just be free, but more than fair, true?
Courtney (also me): Consumers are also voters. We don’t have to be “into” politics and/or journalism, in order to care about what is happening to our news.Voters need to be able to be informed, but as consumers of news we have power. It’s important that we leverage it. Every click, every subscription, every view, like, retweet, share, etc. That’s how the news stays profitable and able to exist. We need good news and excellent journalism. We have to have a fourth estate, to ensure all of the government is answering to us.
I have subscriptions to Vanity Fair, Washington Post, Amee Vanderpool. I also donated to Rewire recently. I like to periodically subscribe to different new sources, because I think it’s important to support good journalism. I follow The Root, Joy Reid, Soledad O’Brien, Mehdi Hasan, Rachel Maddow, Asha Rangappa, and many others on Twitter. (feel free to peruse my follows, there are many: https://twitter.com/misscrf/following).
Interviewer (me): And me as well, right?
Courtney (also me): I’ve been meaning to start following you…Look, our free press survives by our support of it. We have the power to support good journalism, but also to enable bad journalism. It doesn’t have to be intentional. It can just be in a willingness to share information without critical and constructive criticism. If we become the citizen critics of news, then we are part of insisting that it be one that upholds a standard of facts.
In multiple countries, journalists are jailed for attempting to report on what the government was doing, and how it was affecting the people (https://cpj.org/reports/2019/12/journalists-jailed-china-turkey-saudi-arabia-egypt/).
People talk about bias in the media, but there is no bias in facts. We have to stop allowing those who want to perpetrate a false narrative, by the power of our participation. Instead, we must elevate the facts, and demand that the press do the same.
Interviewer (me): Why is this so important right now, as you sit here, interviewing yourself, in what I must say has been an intriguing interview?
Courtney (also me): Why, thank you, thank you. We need good quality, factual press right now, so that people will be informed about the issues facing this election, this pandemic and what our government is doing to our rights. We need good quality reporting in this election. Not just in the Presidential campaign, but on the incumbent representatives and candidates in down ballot races too. Both sides of this divided country will raise concerns about opposing candidates. We need to be willing to ensure that concerns are vetted against facts, rather than allowing loose allegations that have not been proven. We must push back against gaslighting and straw man arguments, to deconstruct misinformation.
Interviewer (me): How do you think the press impacted the 2016 election?
Courtney (also me): In 2016, the media constantly put Donald Trump on the same level as Hillary Clinton. It’s not just the incontrovertible facts that Trump was a businessman known to be a pathological narcissist, a horrible deal-maker, and sitting on a mountain of shady debt and bad taxes.
People can disagree with Secretary Hillary Clinton’s stances on issues, but there was no legitimate call for even suggesting that her policies could be compared to Trump’s rambling and incoherent racist platitudes. He never had any plans for anything, that were ever put on paper, to spell out what his proposals were and how they would be paid for. There were no facts, figures, or details.
Secretary Clinton is a bonafide world-class attorney. She has (present tense) a once in a generation legal and political mind. Whether people like it or not, that is an incontrovertible fact. She was an activist in college, who went on to be attorney during the Nixon impeachment trials. She has championed anti-childhood poverty her entire career. She’s been a US Senator, and Secretary of State. If she were a man, no one would have argued her credentials, or failed to take them into account, when comparing her to Donald Trump.
The media and the consumers of media, allowed this insulting narrative to carry him through the election. It legitimized a man who had no knowledge of the constitution, and who barely understands half of it after a disastrous 3 ½ years.
Interviewer (me): Yeah, mainstream media really screwed the pooch in 2016, didn’t they?
Courtney (also me): It was not just from what might be considered mainstream media. The liberal media perpetuated it too. It was the absolute stance and mantra of the conservative media.
The thing is, it was also the consumers and voters, who consumed and whose votes were influenced by all media. Just because there are 2 candidates in a race, doesn’t mean they are equally qualified for the position they seek. In fact, it’s on all of us to discern and dissect that.
Interviewer (me): How can the media work to correct that?
Courtney (also me): The news media must call out that when Trump says something that’s not true, that he is lying. Not falsely said, not putting the quote out without noting whether it’s true or not. And not just saying it is incorrect. It’s long past due that they move on from framing it as “falsely claims”, “incorrectly suggests”, or worse, just repeating the lie with no refutation. It must be called what it is; a lie. He’s lying.
Either he acknowledges that he is wrong and unequivocally acknowledges the truth, or he refuses to acknowledge the truth. If he refuses to acknowledge the truth, then he’s willfully lying to the public. It has to be that simple, or he will do what he always does. Bury the truth in a mountain of gaslighting, racism, and distractions.
He will cry out about the offense and disrespect, at being called a liar. This is one of those ways people leverage the abusive method of gaslighting. Don’t let him walk it back as a joke either. His colleagues will often do that, to provide cover for the lies he successfully gets into the air supply. The fact that it is a lie can be and must be confirmed. This standard has to be applied to all people reported by the news.
Interviewer (me): Can we realistically do this? Make journalism and our consumption of it better?
Courtney (also me): The fourth estate wasn’t built in a day. We have to work at this, bit by bit. We have to unlearn bad habits, such as liking and/or sharing bad information without calling out the bad information and correcting the record. We might be less active in what we elevate or show people we saw.
We will, though, improve the quality of what we share with those around us. Don’t just share information, based on a title. Click the link and read all the information presented. Vet the credibility of the facts and sources presented. Form your assessment of the information. If it stands on its own, that’s great. If something doesn’t hold up, say so. Find a solid resource to counter what is being said.
Interviewer (me): Any last words you want to say to my many, many readers?
Courtney (also me): Yes, we want and need a quality of newsworthiness that is based in facts. Our free press challenge the government, and we the people must be prepared to challenge any failing of that standard. They are a conduit to be informed voters, and responsible citizens. It’s not acceptable for our government officials to feign ignorance at what is happening in the government they are here to serve. That is public service.
Citizens carry a civic duty to be informed voters. Those are the governing principles of a democratic country that is by the people and for the people. We need our press and journalism to be everything that the fourth estate demands. That’s going to take the consumers of journalism as much as the journalists, to get there and keep it there.
— — — — — — — — — — — -
About the interviewer and interviewee: I went to school, hoping to go into political journalism. Despite a BS in political science, I went into IT, and was fortunate enough to get to work for the government at a Board of Elections, and for my county Democratic Committee. I had no reason to forsake what my knowledge of IT would mean for a solid career. I couldn’t realistically change that in for a dream that I couldn’t count on to pay the bills.
I didn’t go into journalism, but the passion for what journalism is to a society is not lost on me. I didn’t just major in political science and English literature, I also minored in philosophy. How we discuss our government, is a huge part of how we define our society at this point in time, in the history of our civilization. It’s on us all to uphold a standard that our government and it’s officials be transparent and accountable to the people, so that the press can report on what the government is doing. This is how we the people can be informed, and tell truth to power.
