Today America joins more than 300 U.S. publications in an initiative begun by The Boston Globe, calling for news organizations to jointly issue statements in support of the free press, which has been repeatedly insulted by President Donald J. Trump.
The necessity of a free press is a topic that America has written on many times, not only in recent years but throughout its 109 years of publication. Indeed, in its own history America has endured censorship both here at home and abroad: in the former case because it was seen by some as an “enemy of the people” during World War I, and in the latter case because of its support of the cause of Irish independence from Great Britain. For those who would imagine such times are behind us, history and the present moment alike offer a sobering reminder that we must always remain vigilant in the protection of our First Amendment right.
“In a democracy, there can never be too much concern for the preservation of those fundamental liberties guaranteed in the First Amendment,” the editors wrote in 1944, “since they are the life-blood of our political freedom. Without them, without freedom of speech and freedom of the press, democracy would shrivel among us and die.”
The necessity of a free press is a topic that America has written on many times, not only in recent years but throughout its 109 years of publication.
More recently, America’s current editor-in-chief, Matt Malone, S.J., decried how the Trump administration’s affinity for “alternative facts” hurts journalism and puts our constitution in crisis: “This world of ‘alternative facts’ seriously undermines the ability of the press to do its constitutional job. When that happens, we’re one step closer to a government without newspapers.”
It is worth remembering that the suppression of investigative journalism and independent organs of opinion is a feature of every dystopia yet imagined—as well as a harsh reality of every totalitarian regime in human history. Even in our own churches and institutions, we have seen how important these outlets are for revealing the truth, for naming the lie.
The free press is not the enemy: It is often the bright and penetrating light that the malefactor fears will reveal what is done in the dark.
For more of our coverage of the importance of a free press and threats that undermine it, see our list below:
Cokie Roberts on journalism under President Trump
The Problem with Local Journalism
Alternative facts and the coming constitutional crisis
Pope Francis: The media must be factual and free from manipulation
I agree that the free press is not the enemy and we still have some free press left. We also have some that have sold themselves to their constituents, and do nothing but recite talking points as if they were news. In general, the Catholic press has contributed mightily to the secretive environment in which clergy sex abuse has thrived.
You are right. A free press is not the enemy. But we do not have a free press. For example, the Russian collusion story? The biggest fake news story in history? If there was a free press this fake story would not exist.
There is very little free press in the United States anymore because it is controlled by a politically biased elite. Trump's objection is with fake news not a free press. America, the magazine has been guilty of that. Fake News is not the friend of the people so this effort defending a free press is phony.
The very fact that they can publish these coordinated editorials is a rebuttal of their proposition. A coordinated attack is not a sign of a free press. Just the opposite. Is this Groupthink?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/14/americas-newspapers-just-played-right-into-trumps-hands-219360?platform=hootsuite
I think this was an imprudent step, as it appears to confirm that the left wing media is in collusion against Trump. It also seems self-serving and whiny for an industry that has engaged in plenty of political spin over the years. Wouldn't it be great if they came out for religious freedom as a group? Several news outlets, esp. CNN attack Trump 24/7 and inflame racial tensions. There is plenty to criticize, just not all the time and all together.
"Fake news" and "alternative facts" are brilliant phrases that denote an inconvenient truth; the media are filters of biased propaganda, AS WELL AS being a check on government and other powers, AS WELL AS being mere innocent information/news outlets.
The best thing, perhaps the only good thing Trump has ever done politically is coming up with the term "fake news".[IMO]. It was the media and the newspapers who pushed the Iraq war on us and censured opponents of that war.If you questioned the WMD justification you were expressing "alternative facts" as Phil Donahue found out. Abortion is promoted as "women's reproductive health care" by the media and if you refer to it as the scientifically accurate phrase; "the killing of the unborn", you are said to be expressing an "alternate fact" . Before the internet, the main stream newspapers and media outlets were the only game in town.Every bit of information and opinion was filtered by controlled media outlets. Often bias was obvious with even the barest of critical thinking, or just listening or seeing. [ last night on CNN it was said that other special prosecutors investigations went on longer then Mueller's investigation, even thought this cannot be said with truth as Mueller's' investigation has not ended ; this statement was both false and said as a manipulation]. Now thanks to the internet, public access to raw[unfiltered] information and opinion IS possible. The newspapers and media had their day in the sun; now in the 21st century , the century of the people, all people, not top down arbiters and filters of info but across the board all people, is here.
Fake News as a term was a liberal attempt essentially started by Google to control thought on what was appropriate as legitimate news. We have always had fake news. An example was news controlled by Jefferson to criticize his opponents. Trump took the term over when the liberal press was so critical and began fabricating narratives and stories and the torpedoes the press put in the water for Trump have circled around and are now coming home on liberal media.
The news media is mostly procorporate big money because it is corporate big money. The only way you can call them liberal is if you add "neo" as a prefix.
Maybe you can point out for everyone who these neo-liberal big money people have endorsed for public office in the last 20 years.
Doesn't matter, Dem or Repub. They were all neoliberal and supportive of big money. Did Obama go after Wall Street following the Great Recession? Clinton was fine with NAFTA, CAFTA and welfare reform. Convincing the masses that big media is liberal is an Orwellian triumph. Convincing the masses that the Democrats are liberal besides B.S. social issues is another.
Instant runoff voting. That's what we need.
Reading your comments reminds me of the Merry Minuet.
OK. Thanks for schooling me.
Look up "First Draft" funded by Eric Schmidt.
Fake News has a long and sordid history. It is mostly a bias of printing news favorable to one's politics and ignoring news in the opposite direction. For the New York Times, the most infamous example was reporter Walter Duranty, who represented the paper for years as an apologist and propagandist for Stalin, principally by denying the Ukrainian famine and other war crimes. He won a Pulitzer for this work, not yet revoked. Here are some choice quotes:
"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be." --NYT, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." -NYT, August 23, 1933
"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." --NYT, May 14, 1933, page 18
"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition." --NYT, Mar 31, 1933, page 13
He knew these were lies yet believed in the Communist revolution. Then there was the Fake News defending the Rosenbergs.
Biggest failure may have been the support for US involvement in the Great War. The Lusitania was full of ammo. German soldiers weren't bayonetting Belgian babies. The Spanish Flu was first spotted in an Army camp in Kansas. Why did we send troops to support the British and the French? Could it be all the money lent to them? And yes. A democratic president. Liberal? No. The liberals were put in jail using the anti-sedition law.
The term "liberal" as we now use it was introduced by FDR because the term "progressive" had a bad name. Wilson was considered a progressive and so was FDR. Recently liberal got a bad name so progressive is back. There is a variety of ideologies on the left and because they fight each other does not make them less of the left.
Also one has to distinguish between what the government is saying and what the press generates.
The Russian collusion is the biggest fake news story in history? Plea……se!!!!
Only the dictators are afraid of the free press as it is their biggest enemy. For Trump, any news that he doesn’t like is fake, no matter big or small. His frequency of lying increases with time, not less. Only Trump’s TRUE believers can continue to believe him. “The truth will set you free…”
I watched PBS news about a week or so ago and the commentators were so shocked beyond words by the number of lies from Trump, 3,000+ and counting… Every politician lies, but usually, they lie under special circumstances. In the meantime, Trump lies every day and more… He’s beyond the category of a pathological liar – so, for a commentator, Trump maybe not lying, maybe he just perceives reality differently than most rational people.
I would believe an article in the National Enquirer sooner than anything that comes out of the upper orifice of IL Dooshay.
What is a bigger one? Mr O'Leary pointed to The NY Times and Duranty. The sinking of the Maine? See https://www.thesocialhistorian.com/fake-news/ for examples
Why is IL Dooshay so deferential to Tsar Putin? Why the strange switch to mewling beta male at the summit? Is it luv? Is it admiration? Pretty weird, whatever it is. We are in trouble.
I think it is important to remember who started this contest, and who continues to breach self-control measures and the use of out-right lies and half-truths, at just about every turn. And, I think it is important that most news outlets are credible news reporters. And, it is important to note that an editorial position can be conservative or liberal, but it should not have to be consistent with whatever a political party or politician would like. It should be based upon what its newsroom personnel are finding and publishing. And, finally, it is important to remember that news outlets make mistakes. They err in judgment, from time to time.
Donald Trump attacks the press because it exposes his nonstop lying and his criminal behavior. I find it unbelievable that anyone with the ability to read and write enough to comment on this article can find any reason to defend Trump.
Lisa
You might try reading more widely and get past your personal revulsion long enough to realize that had Ms Clinton won you would never have heard about Russian Collusion or the alleged imminent threat it created to our way if life. Seems odd that such an all pervasive threat would have simply never have been revealed if Trump had not won!
Stuart: There is no comparison - Trump v. Clinton. Both were unqualified to hold the office, certainly for different reasons, but we likely would be yelling about Clinton, as well. The only thing she had going for her, in my view, is that she has breadth and depth of government and international relations. That said, her deviousness and clumsiness would have us rockin' and rollin.'
Peter
I agree it was a battle of the least odious.....the ultimate in dysfunctional party politics.
No question had she won , we would be yelling about Clinton "pay to play" etc.
But Russia meddling ?....never would have come up except in "pay to play context".
FBI activities....never would have surfaced....CIA meddling internally ....never have seen daylight.
Stuart: I guess we could sit over a beer (probably a bunch of beers) and create scenarios of what might have happened if Clinton had won the presidential election. But: We do have 'in play,' the Special Counsel, who will render an opinion, which will create an onslaught of 'wailing and gnashing of teeth,' ox goring, and waves of finger pointing, denial, and maybe an unending stream of Congressional hearings. I can hardly wait!
Peter
You forget the Inspector General who is looking into FBI methods and means in its Trump venture......also there is an Insoector General at the State Dept looking into their involvement with an FBI intelligence operation concerning Trump.
The Special Counsel will be one of a number of hopefully enlightening investigations. Trump could preempt them all by declassifying all of the documents which might well provide the the most enlightening look at all the players.
Since this is a religious publication, a parable: "Once there was a woman in New York who would step outside her door each day and clap three times. After a few months, her neighbor asked, 'Why do you do this?' The clapping woman responded, 'I do this to keep away the tigers, as they do not like clapping.' Here neighbor responded with a mix of confusion and condescension, '...But, there are no tigers in New York.' The clapping woman proudly asserted, 'See! It's working!"
Moral: If a person is convinced of something, there is no use explaining it otherwise.
Application: For all of the people questioning these statements of the press as simply more "Fake News," I will not argue against you...but I would like to ask who determines if news is fake? Is it you yourself, and if so how do you know more than professionals trained in this area? Is it another news source that is less fake, and if so how can you tell the difference? Is it based on what Mr. Trump tells you, in which case I suppose I have no further questions. Or is it something else I have missed? I am sincerely curious, and asking in a genuine way. I do not wish to believe you are like the clapping woman, but I am having a difficult time not doing so. Please help me understand.
A better story is “Silver Blaze” or the story of the dog barking in the night. The Russian Collusion story is the case in point. There have been lots of claims of collusion but no barking dog. In fact there is lots of evidence supporting the story was actually fabricated by the Democrats. In this case there are several barking dogs. For any event, there are many sources of evidence one can use. Find what is consistent with the various claims. God gave us the ability to discern. Don't be like the clapping woman.
For a recent example of our independent free press (about two weeks ago) see https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rLEchPZm318
They are more like Pravda which means truth in Russian. This coordination is scary for those who believe in a free press. There are lists of nearly a hundred fake news stories in recent years that have appeared in the MSM. All seem to go in one direction.