Preserving a Free Press

Before I entered the academic world, I was a television newsman and editorial writer for a few years at a local station in Florence, SC.  WBTW was an affiliate of Jefferson Standard Broadcasting. While there I learned to value responsible journalism in a society that believes in a free press.

Some news reporters and commentators will claim they are totally unbiased with regard to political viewpoint, but that is implausible. A journalist should be deliberate in reaching any judgment about public policies or candidates, but no one can inform himself adequately to cover an issue or a set of candidates without likely forming a viewpoint. If he is to perform his job as a journalist, he must bend over backward to give some time and space to those policies and candidates he finds less attractive.

Editorial writers have more leeway than reporters because they are recognized as the source of a newspaper’s or broadcaster’s opinion.  An editorial writer should still acknowledge differing viewpoints either through op-ed columns or letters to the editor. At WBTW every time I wrote an editorial I had to invite an outside individual to offer on air a differing opinion or perspective.

Broadcasters at the time, radio and television, had to abide by the “fairness doctrine.” A mandate of the Federal Communication Commission, it required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. Each station periodically had to submit evidence it was fulfilling this goal with documented community support.

Unfortunately, the fairness doctrine was repealed during the Ronald Reagan administration. The growing plethora of cable and satellite channels in the 1980s appeared to offer an alternative to the fairness doctrine. In reality, individual channels now are more likely to offer narrow opinions, if any, and discussions of important issues are not approached in a comprehensive and balanced manner.

Newspapers did not have to contend with the fairness doctrine for a couple of reasons. One, most newspapers were locally owned and managed and depended upon local advertisers and there was no license required to operate a newspaper. The threat of potential competition encouraged presentation of a broad array of opinions. Second, most newspapers considered one of their roles to be that of educator, informing the public about the issues of the day. Editors offered their own opinions, but usually printed differing views on an op-ed page or in letters to the editor.  

With this background in mind, let us take note of the current controversy revolving around the op-ed piece by US Senator Tom Cotton that appeared recently in the New York Times.

Exactly how many Americans are aware of Senator Cotton’s essay I do not know, nor how many may have actually read it. But it has caused considerable discussion in the world of journalism about the meaning and function of a free press.

For the benefit of those who do not read the Times or pay excessive attention to political pundits, Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, in a June 3 op-ed called for using US military troops in response to demonstrations like those sparked by the murder of George Floyd.

A graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School, Cotton served five years in the US Army Infantry between 2005 and 2010, spending time in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 
In 2012, he was elected to the US House representing Arkansas’ 4^th District. After serving one term, Cotton was elected in 2014 to the US Senate. He was 37 years old.

Cotton has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and despite his youth and limited experience has been touted as a potential candidate for Director of the CIA and for Secretary of Defense. His views are hawkish on foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice reform. In February 2020, Cotton suggested the coronavirus may have started in a Wuhan, China, lab and spread under suspicious circumstances.

Cotton’s message parroted President Trump’s earlier threat to employ the US military to quell disorder if local law enforcement could not, or would not, act. To justify use of military force, Cotton cited several instances in the past where US military or National Guard units were deployed, including Little Rock in 1957 and Los Angeles in 1992.

He did not mention Kent State in 1970 when National Guard troops killed four students in what had been a peaceful protest.

But it is not the validity of Cotton’s opinion that is at issue. The fallout from the Times’ printing of his op-ed piece is the problem, for it led to the resignation of the editor of the opinion page and raises some disturbing questions about the newspaper’s policy regarding future op-eds.

After Cotton’s essay appeared there was an immediate and hostile reaction from members of the Times news staff.  A twitter assault accused the op-ed editors of publishing a call for violence that included several factual inaccuracies and did not meet the newspaper’s standards. According to a statement from the NewsGuild of New York, a labor union that represents Times’ journalists, “This rhetoric could inspire further use of force at protests---protests many of us and our colleagues are covering in person.”

However, the day Cotton’s op-ed was published was also the day retired Marine General James Mattis blasted President Trump for proposing to use US military troops against protesters. The attack by Mattis has since been echoed by a number of key military leaders, including Colin Powell and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Even members of Trump’s administration have pushed back at his suggestion.

As an elected member of the US Senate, Cotton’s opinion should be of interest to all Americans, even to those, like me, who strongly disagrees with both his thesis about the use of force in response to public protest s and his dismissive treatment of the motives of most protesters. 

Apparently, he is on a fast track to leadership within the Republican Party and has the ear of the current president.

The purpose of a free press is to alert the public to possible threats to our liberty and well-being.  Censoring those perceived as threats could leave us in the dark about potential dangers. It also risks elevating possible tyrants to martyrs. Better to let miscreants do themselves in with their own words.

Is Social Distancing Unconstitutional?

As the nation attempts to move away from “staying-in-place” towards a reopening of various elements of everyday life, there is a lot of discussion about the relationship between the pandemic and the US Constitution. It is not unusual that this should be occurring. Americans are proud of our founding document and reference it often.

The problem is the US Constitution was written over 230 years ago when things were a bit different. That leads often to disputes about the meaning of various clauses and provisions. Especially when disputants have competing axes they wish to grind.

As for me, when I attempt to determine what a particular provision of the US Constitution means, I try to ascertain how it relates to the framers’ purpose when they were creating our federal government. The preamble gives us a useful clue:

“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

No surprise that “…to form a more perfect Union…” came first. The framers had a number of other objectives: justice, public safety, national defense, economic security, and individual liberty, but they likely understood that accomplishing any and all would require the combined efforts of the approximately four million Americans living at that time. Throughout most of our history union has been the key to our successes as a nation.

With three-hundred-twenty-five million Americans today, continuing to progress towards the goal of “a more perfect Union” is a lot tougher, and our inability to deal with a variety of long term problems reflects this challenge. Still, it is an important goal.

As for our current dilemma, faced with one of our nation’s more serious health threats, most Americans seem to be on board with regards to the need for a common effort, even if it involves significant financial costs and personal inconvenience.  

Some, however, claim the social distancing guidelines imposed or suggested by state and local governments are unconstitutional. Mixed and contradictory messages from the White House regarding the recommendations encourage dissent from the common sense proposals. Fortunately, Congress has been willing to step into the void and provide significant funding to lessen the financial impact of the resulting economic lockdown. But more needs to be done.

Those who assert the social distancing recommendations are unconstitutional seem to suffer from mass paranoia. The guidelines have not been drafted to diminish individual rights, but just as is the case with any threat to domestic order, to national security or to the rights of other individuals, legitimate restraints may be appropriate.  In the current situation, the purpose is to protect our health care system from being overwhelmed by a dangerous virus for which we have no known cure or even treatment.

The speed and extent of the virus has been mindboggling. Unrestrained, it could have swamped our health care system, especially the nation’s hospitals since we maintain, reasonably so, a limited capacity. Even now, there is the possibility of another surge that could leave our health care system unable to respond to other health threats, such as cancer, heart attacks, stroke or flu.

What is the severity of the restrictions? Private businesses, schools and colleges, churches and synagogues, cultural organizations and health care institutions, all have had  their operations shut down, or at least, severely restrained. This is why Congress has sought to mitigate the economic damage suffered by employers and employees.  Allowing society to continue as if the virus did not exist is not a reasonable alternative.

Social distancing does not impose an oppressive burden on the individual. In fact, social distancing, including wearing a mask , is an individual’s obligation to his fellow citizens. It does not interfere with free speech, free press, or religious freedom.  An unrestrained pandemic and death would.

Access to essential human needs have not been shut down. That is why health care facilities remain open, as do grocery stores, the Post Office and other delivery services. All of this is intended to be temporary and it will be if social distancing is practiced by everyone for a reasonable period of time---measured by the course of the virus and by the success of science in developing a cure and improving treatment for those who contract the virus.

President Trump’s cavalier attitude towards social distancing is apparently motivated by a concern that economic sluggishness will torpedo his re-election in November. He has good reason to be concerned. Officially, the US is already in recession. The last president to be re-elected during a recession was Harry Truman.  Too bad Harry is no longer around.