Freedom of the Press is under attack

Important as the “sages of the ages” may have considered it to be, freedom of the press is under attack in the first quarter of the 21^st Century. Many economic problems have beset our news media. Local newspapers have taken the hardest blows.

The business model that profitably supported newspapers and what we now consider “traditional” broadcast news media for decades has eroded out from under these organizations in the Age of the Internet.

(Osama Hajjaj/Cartooning for Peace/Global Geneva)

Freedom of the press is under attack from social media that draw eyes away from paid news sources, too. News aggregators depend on them, but they also freely borrow from them, reaping the benefit of their paid professional journalists.

(AZ Quotes)

This changing landscape drains surviving news agencies drier and drier. The average regional newspaper that still exists has seen its staff of professional journalists dwindle down to a hard-working, multi-tasking few. Efforts such as Report for America (modeled on Teach for America, but a separate entity) can’t fill that gap.

It also has trained people to expect free news. I hear complaints all the time from people who have followed my links to a fuller discussion on a news source, only to face a paywall.

(Terry Hagz/Sacramento News & Review/L.A. Times)

Free news, “echo chambers,” and the rise of fake news

Recent research by Reuters found that most people aren’t willing to pay for news. Those who do pay for a subscription rarely have more than one. And even those willing to pay may suffer “subscription fatigue” from repeatedly being confronted with pleas to pay, wherever they go. Personally, I have at least ten subscriptions—I just tried to count them all and was kinda shocked—but I still get subscription fatigue.

This whole dynamic can lead to a range of problems. We all have heard how divisiveness in politics is exacerbated when people stick to their own echo chambers of information and opinion. Their confirmation bias grows ever more entrenched when they only listen to people who agree with them.

(AZ Quotes)

Mistrust of information from the outside, and uneven or sporadic exposure to free news, that may or may not be accurate, poses an existential treat to democracy. Confirmation bias can cause people to avoid information that may make them question their beliefs. Even if it’s true.

This makes them vulnerable to chicanery. Malicious actors or propagandists have learned how to use this mistrust for their own ends. Roosevelt inveighed against “Editorialists who tell downright lies” in the quotation above. But in the Age of the Internet, they don’t even have to identify themselves.

(AZ Quotes)

People with no clear reference points and a distrust of established news agencies fall for fake news such as "Pizzagate" (referenced in an earlier post in this series). Or any other malign messages that foreign agents and domestic ideologues decide to package.

(Antonio Rodriguez/Cartooning for Peace/Global Geneva)

A misinformed electorate

This is how wild assertions get spread and believed. They can be life-threatening messages, such as the idea that one might cure Covid with an injection of bleach, or that wearing a mask during a pandemic is somehow weak.

Or they may be democracy-threatening, such as the idea that one leader or political party is coming to take away all the guns belonging to members of the other. Or that voting fraud is rampant, so it’s futile to vote, or it’s okay to place burdensome restrictions on voting.

(AZ Quotes)

We can't ignore or wish away the fact that freedom of the press is under attack in our world today. Misleading messages and widely-believed falsehoods are the very opposite of what prevails in a functional democracy.

If the United States—indeed, to a great extent if the world—does not soon learn to counter this pernicious trend, we stand to lose all of our freedoms.

(AZ Quotes)

IMAGE CREDITS:

Deepest thanks to Global Geneva and Cartooning for Peace, for two images: I also thank Jordanian cartoonist Osama Hajjaj for the unsettling image of the effect of all too many social media/Internet forces on professional journalism, and Mexican cartoonist Antonio Rodriguez, for his “tightrope over fake news” image.

Many thanks to the L.A. Times, photographer Terry Hagz, and owner Jeff vonKaenel and the Sacramento News & Review, for the “Suspending Publication” photo. I’m pleased to discover their demise wasn’t permanent.

And heartfelt gratitude to AZ Quotes, for the assorted quote-images used in this article: For Indian author Arundhati Roy’s analysis of the free market’s influence on free elections, courts and press. For the warning from FDR about false messages in the news, long before the term “fake news” had been coined. For the description of “spin” from Kathleen Hall Jamieson. For the quote from former U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) on the importance of an engaged and informed electorate. And for the Barack Obama quote about lies versus the truth (from a speech given in Estonia in 2014).

The importance of Freedom of the Press

Today my First Amendment series shifts its focus to Freedom of the Press. Of the “four freedoms” enshrined in the First Amendment, I take this one especially personally.

(Morin-toons/Cartooning for Peace/Global Geneva)

My first paying job was writing stories for a local “shopper” newspaper (back when those existed). Journalism was my undergraduate minor (only because my school didn’t offer a major). I’ve been a freelance or staff reporter for several publications over the years. And I taught journalism or publications along with art for all but three semesters of my teaching career.

The past three posts in this series (from July 2, July 10, and July 16, 2020) have taken a look at the beginning of the First Amendment. If you’ve been following them, you probably can recite this article of the Bill of Rights with me from memory by this time.

The part relevant to today’s discussion is: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press.”

How important is this freedom?

The Founders were very clear about the importance of a free press. Thomas Jefferson (despite his deeply troubling record on racism) had a clear-eyed certainty when it came to free dissemination of the news.

(American Center New Delhi)

Jefferson wasn’t alone in his evaluation. Through the centuries since those words were written and ratified, other influential thinkers of their times have agreed.

(AZ Quotes)

Wilkie and his sometimes political opponent, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, agreed on several issues. One was the importance of Freedom of the Press.

(AZ Quotes)

Justice Frankfurter and his near-contemporary Walter Cronkite occupied different spheres of the national stage. Yet they also both saw Freedom of the Press as essential for the health of the democracy.

(AZ Quotes)

In future posts, I plan to explore the most virulent forces threatening freedom of the press, and through it our freedom, and fate our form of government itself.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Many thanks to Jim Morin, Cartooning for Peace, and Global Geneva for the “Free-Press Typewriter” image. I’m grateful to the American Center New Delhi on Facebook, for the quote from Thomas Jefferson. Many thanks to AZ Quotes for Wendell Wilkie’s evaluation of democracy’s need for a free press. And to AZ Quotes again, for Felix Frankfurter’s observation on the importance of free speech and press. And finally AZ Quotes for yet a third time in a row, for the words from Kansas City’s own Walter Cronkite. I appreciate you all!

Freedom of Speech Part Two: Not a crime but not okay

Do we really have as much freedom of speech as we think? Do we have more than we realize? Or have we misunderstood the whole concept? Two weeks ago, I started a series of posts on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Last week I discussed “When Speech is a Crime,” exploring the exceptions to the First Amendment.

Now might be a good moment to remember what the First Amendment actually says.

Many thanks to Indivisible Door County WI.

In my first post of this series, I asked, “Is the First Amendment an aspiration, or a reality?” I got some pushback in comments online. As one commenter put it, “Of course the First Amendment is a reality. It’s the law!”

But that might be an “alternative fact” in daily practice. The founding documents also say “all men are created equal,” and there’s a culture-wide concept that “equal justice under law” is a guiding principle. We haven’t even come close to getting those right, yet. Kinda like with the slaves in Texas between the Emancipation Proclamation and Juneteenth. Just ‘cuz they wrote it, that “don’t mean we got it.”

Freedom of speech, and its limitations

As with all broad declarations of principle, the devil lurks amongst the details. Turns out, freedom of speech is a thorny issue, even (or perhaps especially) in the USA. The section of the First Amendment relevant to today’s post says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .”

Courtesy of "Relatably."

That all seems pretty straightforward. But even when the speaker is not committing a crime, s/he may hesitate to say something. There are times when even protected speech may technically be legal—but it also may be socially “not okay.”

 

Political correctness and “Cancel Culture”

 

In recent decades several terms have bubbled up from the cultural ferment: “Politically correct,” “cancel culture,” or "call-out culture." Sometimes people abuse their new power gained through "the leveling effects of social media." But still I agree with Spencer Kornhaber that it's less a matter of "cancellation" than accountability. 

Whatever you call it, these terms are used defensively. They push back against a changing social norm that abhors racist, sexist or gender-identity-denigrating speech or actions. 

Courtesy of Parentology.

The pushers-back complain that these shifting social norms result in a climate that stifles freedom of self-expression. An excellent recent example of this can be found in a letter that, while set to be published in the October 2020 issue of Harper’s Magazine, has already found its way into wide circulation. The inevitable response to this pushback also is easy to find.

Many, including several prominent comedians, have protested that political correctness “kills humor.” Those who disagree counter by saying what’s dying is out-of-date schtick that relies on bigotry for humor. More on that below.

Thought police? Really?

The complainers also say the country is more and more pervasively dominated by “thought police.” That to step out of line, especially on college campuses, is to risk scorn, ridicule, and ostracism. The critique of campus culture has some merit, as far as it goes. Sometimes unpopular speakers, especially those who support white supremacy or are known for hate speech, are booked for events on some college campuses. Almost inevitably, students have raised loud protests.

This back-and-forth has led to conservative-leaning students saying they feel unwelcome in some classes. They report being afraid to speak their views in classrooms or campus forums, for fear of being shouted down or shunned. The liberal-arts ideal of a “marketplace of ideas” never included this.

Courtesy of Minds Media. (Might note that Chomsky signed the Harper's letter.)

A short “Political Correctness” debate

Lest this discussion get too heavy, let’s pause for a short “political correctness” debate in the form of a meme war. Contemporary social media culture seems awash in such soundbite messaging. And memes fly in especially thick flurries and flocks when it comes to political correctness. Why not let the memes duke it out?

(Clockwise: Politically Incorrect Humor, Lather, via MemeCenter, and Meme Generator)

(Clockwise: SomEEcards, and "Chris1787763," QuickMeme, and Claire's Passion Blog/Ampersand by B. Deutch.)

(“unusedimgur,” via Imgur)

There now. Who says humor is dead? There are times when we may be tempted to side with the Puffin. Unfortunately, the puffin meme supports a false equivalency.

 

The philosophical throughline: underlying bigotry

 

As far as I can tell, there’s one huge problem with the arguments against political correctness. It lies in the kind of “truth” and “humor” they defend.

 

The “freedom” they desire often turns out to be the freedom to use racist or homophobic language. The “truth” they defend all too often isn’t objective truth, but derisive racial or gender-identity stereotypes. The “humor” they want to keep alive boils down to racial slurs and ethnic jokes.

Dig down to the bottom of the “anti-P.C.” arguments, and you’ll mostly find white privilege defending hate speech. 

You may be surprised to learn that hate speech normally is protected speech—at least, in the United States. Mind your expressions of racial hate in other parts of the world, though. 

Hate Speech, the ultimate “not a crime but not okay.”

 

Defined as “distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear,” hate speech truly does offend. But as long as people stop short of hate crimes, they can say pretty much any awful thing they want to.

And they definitely do say despicable things. There are lots of reasons why, but it all boils down to one. White privilege doesn’t want to concern itself with others’ problems and feelings, because it’s never had to do that before. Well, sorry to all you white snowflakes in your gated communities. That’s got to change. 

Outside her St. Louis mansion on June 28, 2020, Patricia McCloskey points a handgun at Black Lives Matter protesters, one of whom also appears to be armed. Her husband Mark McCloskey stands farther back behind a hedge with a rifle. Later, Mark said he was “scared for my life, protecting my wife.” (Photo: CNN.)

I understand. Always having to accommodate another culture takes a lot of effort. You must always think about the other culture’s standards, ideas, perceptions, and understandings. Even if you don’t “get” them.

It’s really hard. You’ll get things wrong, and there’s a price to pay when you do. Sometimes you’re wrong, no matter what you do, just because of what you look like, or where you came from. And you never, ever, get a break from it. That’s uncomfortable and exhausting.

 

I can almost hear all the Black folks out there saying, “MM-mm, you know that's right.” Because that's the reality they live every day.

 

But white people’s moans about “political correctness” are the whimpers of dying privilege. Sooner or later—actually, about 2045 or so—demographics will have their way with this country. No matter how many pathetic little (I’m sorry: “big, beautiful”) walls we build.

Rather than huddle inside our compounds, if we white people are wise we’ll start expanding our horizons, and working for justice.

 

 

Courtesy of Gecko And Fly.

IMAGES:

Many thanks to Indivisible Door County WI for the First Amendment's text. I am grateful to Relatably for the quote-image from Benjamin Franklin, and to Parentology, for the "cancel culture" definition. Deepest gratitude to MindsMedia, for the Noam Chomsky quote-image.

 

MEME-WAR: I’m grateful to Politically Incorrect Humor for the “Judging people” meme, to Lather, via MemeCenter for the Schnauzer image, and to MemeGenerator (no legible additional credit) for the George Carlin quote.

I’m also grateful to SomeEEcards and “Chris 1787763” for the “act like a douche” image, to QuickMeme (no additional credit) for the “P.C. but Torture” meme, and to Ampersand by B. Deutch, via Claire’s Passion Blog on the Penn State University website, for “The Straight, Ablebodied, Cis, Rich, White Man’s Burden” cartoon.

Many thanks for the peace-puffin meme to “unusedimgur,” via Imgur.

 

MORE IMAGES:

Many thanks to CNN for the photo of the McCloskeys confronting BLM protesters, and to GeckoandFly for the image-quote from the wonderful sf author N. K. Jemisin.

 

Freedom of speech, Part One: Speech isn't free if it's a crime

When it comes to freedom of speech, we have a lot of latitude. We’ve all heard someone say, “It’s a free country! I can say anything I want!” But is that right? Can you literally say anything? Last week I started a series of posts on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Many thanks to Indivisible Door County, WI

The section of the First Amendment relevant to today’s post says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” That seems pretty straightforward, but there are wrinkles.

Protected speech has always had exceptions. Today I’d like to address the “criminal element.”

When speech is a crime

Let’s start with slander. Slanderers make false statements that defame and damage a person’s reputation. You’re not free to do that, because it’s just a wrong, unfair thing to do. But then come the questions: How can you prove it’s false? Is it still slander if your victim is famous?

Image courtesy of @CelebDirtyLaundry on Twitter.

What if you honestly thought it was true when you said it? If you’ve ever forwarded a shocking meme without checking to make sure its “facts” were accurate, you should fold up your righteous indignation, and stick it right back into the cabinet.

Related but different, perjury is a crime because it interferes with the rendering of justice. Doesn’t keep it from happening, but it’s not legal, either.

Many thanks to Quotestats.

A particular kind of wrong

How about obscenity and child pornography? People immediately start arguing about “what is obscene?” “To whom?” “In what context?” The so-called “Miller test” defines three points by which to evaluate whether something is obscene, but it’s not perfect, either.

Child pornography, which is extremely destructive to its underage victims, is considered a sex crime—but people have tried to defend it as a First Amendment question.

No freedom for criminal conduct

Many thanks to AZ Quotes.

“Speech integral to criminal conduct” is a broad category, it turns out. The formation of a more perfect union is never served by con artists swindling people, for instance. They have no First Amendment right to defraud someone.

Another prohibited category includes false advertising, which is a kind of swindling. There are a lot of people who think the “false advertising” test should include gaslighting in the political arena (“Pizzagate,” anyone?). So far, however drawing the line between opinion and falsehood or misleading representation has eluded many of us.

Here’s an evocation of the “Pizzagate” fake news conspiracy (Thanks, Rolling Stone and illustrator Sean McCabe).

Inciting physical harm

Inciting others to commit violence is another kind of speech that’s not free, because it can lead to harm. For instance, inciting a mob to do violence, can lead to people getting hurt or killed, property destroyed, etc. 

The aftermath of a riot, allegedly incited 5/31/2020 by a Michigan woman, wasn’t pretty. (WMMT Channel 3).

Likewise, making false statements to set off panic (the infamous “falsely yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater” scenario) is not protected. You can’t solicit someone to commit a crime (such as hiring a hit man to take out your inconvenient spouse). 

Insidious falsehoods

Inconvenient though some might find it, the First Amendment won’t defend extortion or blackmail, either. Except, perhaps, when you’re a president extorting a foreign leader for political aid, and the Senate won’t impeach you?

Trump, Zelensky, and the 7/25/2019 memo documenting the "perfect call." (illustration courtesy of Rogue Rocket).

Hounding your boyfriend via text messages until he kills himself, as Michelle Carter learned, is also not protected. Indeed, true threats, harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying are all criminal behavior, although they can be difficult to prosecute. 

False reports

For what seem like pretty obvious reasons, filing a false police report is also a crime. That’s what got Amy Cooper, currently the poster child for the “Karen” stereotype, in hot water with the law. Not for her racist rant, which is protected speech. That “only” got her internationally shamed, fired from her job, and her dog adoption rescinded.

For a while, a certain group of online gamers thought “swatting” was pretty funny. This is making calls to police departments to prank them into responding in force to a hapless victim’s address. Hilarious, right? Tyler Barriss thought so, too, until his false call got Andrew Finch, a Wichita man, killed. For this and other “swatting” calls, he’ll spend 20 years in a Federal prison.

Wichita Police work the crime scene at the Finch residence after a prank "swatting" call went horribly wrong. (Photo by Fernando Salazar/Wichita Eagle/AP, via the New York Times).

Speech is powerful. When used for peace and progress, art, or enlightenment, it can transform communities and uplift lives. When used for evil ends, it can harm, impoverish, or kill. It behooves us all to mind our tongues in certain important ways.

Next week we'll look at freedom for less-than-popular forms of self-expression that are protected. Even though some people think they shouldn't be.

If you have thoughts on the things I've written here, please let me know in the comments below!

IMAGES: 

Many thanks to Indivisible Door County, WI for the text of the First Amendment. The “Allegations Denied” image is from @CelebDirtyLaundry via Twitter. I appreciate Quotestats providing the Robert Green Ingersoll quote, and AZ Quotes for the Alan Greenspan quote. Deepest gratitude to Rolling Stone and illustrator Sean McCabe, for the “Pizzagate” illustration. The full illustration has been cropped in the image I used, but is shown in its entirety lower on the source-page. Many thanks to WMMT Channel 3 of Grand Rapids, MI, for the “aftermath of the riot” photo. I’m grateful to Rogue Rocket for the Trump/Zelensky illustration, and also deeply so to photographer Fernando Salazar, the Wichita Eagle, the AP and the New York Times for the photo of the scene outside Andrew Finch’s house the night he died. I appreciate you all!