In 1787 our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in order to create a government that would be ruled by the people instead of by them. A cornerstone of this effort was the expressed need for systemic transparency and the unique privilege and responsibility of every citizen to be informed and engaged. The First Amendment to our Constitution intended to help accomplish this. In addition to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, this amendment features "freedom of the press," which mean that citizens are allowed to circulate opinions in print without government censorship. Thomas Jefferson characteristically opined: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
In 1766, twenty-five years before the passage of our First Amendment, the Swedish parliament became the first to pass a: "Freedom of the Press Act," abolishing the Swedish government's role as a censor of printed matter, and allowing official actions of the government to be made public. The concept of press freedom did not really become an issue until the 15th century when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, enabling the mass production of books, newspapers, and other publications, which facilitated the spread of ideas faster an farther than ever before. Since some of these ideas tended to challenge official power structures, countless political and religious authorities actively suppressed publications they deemed subversive. (Britannica. com.) In the ensuing tug of war between those who insisted on controlling content and context of disseminated information, and those arguing that a free press was indispensable for people to stay informed an participate in a democracy, its influence has had much to do with the ultimate system of government countries adopted.
While autocrats favor controlling the flow and interpretation of information, democratic societies continue to stand behind freedom of the press, be it sometimes uncomfortably. They argue that: "The transparency that journalism brings to events makes government work better, decreases the risk of corruption, and ultimately makes our nation safer." (Linda A. Klein, "A free press is necessary for a strong democracy," ABA Journal, May 2017." Thy ideologically agree with Jefferson that: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and cannot be limited without being lost."
While the invention of the printing press led to a revolutionary increase in the spread of ideas, the growth of social media has prompted a vastly more sweeping growth of information technology and dissemination. Today unfiltered thoughts and ideas can be communicated to millions of recipients within minutes. Autocratic systems are finding ways of controlling flow, an subverting content. In democratic systems this is legally more difficult. Where desired, unfavorable press is often attacked by belittling its content, and identifying its substance as "fake news," as, supposedly, contrasted with official news.
Fake news, or deliberate misinformation, has been around for centuries. It is often indistinguishable from propaganda, as openly used by the Nazis, Communists and Fascists under the guise of "public enlightenment." More recently our own governmen5 has routinely confronted much of the nation's press with accusations of creating "fake news" as well, particularly when the disseminated information does not favor our president. The intent appears to be to undermine the veracity of criticism of the administration's policies and proposals, to substitute and obscure verifiable facts, and replace them with alternative facts.
To be fair, many residents have had contentious a contentious relationship with the press. Such are the trappings of a healthy democracy. However, the current administration has elevated its distaste for the legitimate press by being blatantly vitriolic. It regressed from characterizing unfavorable press as "fake news" to demonizing unfriendly media as the "enemy of the people," a term introduced by Joseph Stalin almost a century ago for the purpose of annihilating individuals who disagreed with him. Donald Trump, at his rallies, has made a point of identifying journalists as "horrible, horrendous people." His objective has clearly been to silence unfavorable ideas and conceal inconvenient reporting.
Trump's barrage of media attacks has had a measurable effect on the Republican Party. By the end of last year, just fourteen percent of Republicans said they still trusted the media. (John Cassidy, "How to counter Donald Trump's War on the Media," The New Yorker, August 3, 208.) Trump's announcement: "Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news... what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening," is shockingly reflective of a key point made by George Orwell in "1984:" "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
To quote Thomas Jefferson again: "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know, nor notice, its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." (1792).
Any self-respecting flourishing democracy embraces freedom of the press. In fact, it can't exist without it. Authoritarian regimes know that their survival depends on operating without the eyes and ears of the press upon them. In trying to undermine news coverage, President Trump is attempting to enjoy the same luxury. (John Diaz, SF Chronicle, July 29, 2018). As the sociologist DaShanne Stokes has pointed out: "Fascism thrives in obscurity and darkness."
Our democracy will not survive or grow by feeding people B.S. and keeping them in the dark. That's how you grow mushrooms.
No comments:
Post a Comment