Connections: In the Crosshairs
Going to the internet to read what commentators have been saying about what the Trump administration might mean for the press, I was stunned by these words on the back of a black T-shirt worn by a man at a Trump rally: “Rope.Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required.”
The president-elect has never used these hateful words, himself, and if he ever hinted that journalists should be lynched, he would have been speaking metaphorically, of course. He has, however, made it clear that he considers reporters to be sneaks, cheats, conspirators, and villains. (Sneaks, cheats, conspirators, and villains motivated by sheer dastardliness, apparently: Heaven knows reporters don’t do it for the money or the love.) Mr. Trump has called the news media “dishonest,” “lying,” “disgusting,” “corrupt,” and “scum,” and he has vowed to make it easier to sue newspapers for libel.
One of his favorite supporters, Fox’s Sean Hannity, has gone so far as to say Mr. Trump should refuse to allow The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, to have White House credentials.
Barring potential critics and ushering in those “journalists” who fall in line? Has the president-elect heard about the First Amendment? Does he care about the principles of freedom it enshrines? Has he read the Bill of Rights at all?
In an interview on CNN (a news station Mr. Trump has railed against, naturally), Floyd Abrams, a highly respected lawyer dedicated to First Amendment cases, noted that there are no federal libel laws; they differ from state to state. I hope that Mr. Trump has become aware of this fact by now — though, as I write this, I’m not sure he would care, even if he is aware of it.
Mr. Abrams expressed the concern that Mr. Trump’s denigration of the media “could lead the public to be so anti-press” that even if it didn’t destroy the it, it could “lead the public to limit its constitutionally protected role.”
Mr. Trump may have gone to Wharton for an undergraduate program, but his education, clearly, was lacking when it came time for classes on the rule of law.
From where I sit, it seems that our current national crisis was in at least some measure made possible by the crisis in professional journalism. Newspapers, unable to compete with no-cost pseudo-news spread via social media, have had to shut down across the country. Will Americans see the value of paying for reliable news — from professionals dedicated to best ethical practices — only too late?
Whatever Mr. Trump throws at journalists in this country, however, pales in comparison with the violence journalists encounter elsewhere. A recent report from the Committee to Protect Journalists said 450 journalists around the world had been forced into exile since 2010; Syria had expelled 101, Ethiopia 57, and Iran 52. Being kicked out of the White House, if it comes to that, wouldn’t seem like such a big deal . . . if it didn’t signal the coming administration’s possible first step toward an unconstitutional and unAmerican silencing of the healthy questioning and criticism that is so necessary to good government.
Now, mind you, I am definitely not one who believes that nasty things emblazoned on T-shirts should be censored. On occasion, when The Star has been hotly criticized for publishing bigoted or hate-filled letters against individuals or groups, I have tried to remind readers that the First Amendment is intended to guarantee the expression of language and opinions that are unpopular or even offensive. That is the very crux of free speech: The majority’s accepted opinions need no protection.
And that is precisely what the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, grasped so clearly so long ago: When, God forbid, the majority of Americans embraced ideologies or actions that were dangerously wrong and a danger to democracy, it would be the duty of dissenters to speak out in protest. Their right to do that, under the First Amendment, and the right of the press to report on 0ould stand between us and tyranny.