The Importance of a Free Press

 

Find journalists you trust--they are still out there!

Recently, I have been reading books about World Wars I and II.  Those of you who have followed my blog for over a decade know my interest in history and my admiration for the Constitution, and while I had an interest in America's involvement in wars, I have sought to learn more in the past year. This blog was motivated by a quote from Leon Uris's book Mila 18,--a conversation between a disillusioned news journalist who feels as though his reporting is being ignored and his editor, who encourages him to keep reporting, even when too many are not paying attention.   

    Journalist:  "Can I go on being a journalist under these conditions?  I have learned now that truth is not truth.  Truth is only what people want to believe and nothing more."  

    Editor:  "But you will continue to seek it as a journalist... You have lost sight of the fact that there is a world of decent human beings and a lot of them are listening.  They depend on the Christopher de Monts to be their eyes.  You are not a man to abandon the human race because you have lost a battle."  

The book from which this quote is taken is about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, in which nearly everyone was killed or removed to the extermination prisons.   Christopher de Monts, the disillusioned journalist, was protected by the fighters in the Ghetto and led to safety so that he could live to tell what had happened.  Although Mila 18 is a novel, based on an actual event, it caused me to think about the real journalists that are risking their lives to report the news in violent places.

As of January 1, 2023, the Committee to Protect Journalists, have documented deaths in the Gaza-Israel war as 82 journalists and media workers confirmed dead.  The Committee to Protect Journalists have sought since 1992 to document deaths of those who risk their lives to gather news--killed by murder, crossfire, and on dangerous assignments-- and the total since they began is 2,284. 

The 1st Amendment of the American Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."  Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of citizens having access to accurate information in order for the nation to survive.  Although there has always been concern during wars that disclosing information might reveal secrets to the enemy, records from W.W. II report that 67 journalists died over 7 years.  In Vietnam 63 died over 20 years.

Some countries do not allow the same freedom of the press.  According to the World Freedom Index, information from North Korea, Iran, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, and Syria are among those difficult to access information.  (Source: Wikipedia)

Not all deaths of journalists happen on the battlefield.  In October of 2018 Saudi journalist Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.  When telling the truth made it too dangerous for him to remain in his home country, he had left, coming to America to continue reporting as a columnist for the Washington Post newspaper.  Knowing the danger of returning to his own country, but needing some personal documents, he went to the Saudi consulate in Turkey to acquire the documents he needed.  Although he avoided returning to Saudi Arabia, he was killed.  His death is evidence of how important a free press is and a reminder of the courage of men and women who sometimes risk their lives to provide accurate information.   

Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of a free press.  We have had Yellow Journalism perhaps as long as there were printing presses, but people seemed to know that their exaggerations were just that--sensationalism rather than facts.  There were scandal sheets and romanticized magazines that may have been offensive but did little harm.  People found radio, television broadcasters, and newspapers that they trusted for keeping informed.  There were also commentators who expressed opinions, and often there were dueling commentators to offer different points of view, but there was a distinction between news and opinion.   

Find Original Sources that have been documented (Anne Frank's Journal),
.

The world has changed, and sometimes it is hard to find the truth, but a Free Press is still essential for Americans.  We do not want the government dictating our news, but as more unsourced information enters the internet, we have a greater responsibility to make sure we are not allowing ourselves to be duped. Just because someone tells us what we want to hear doesn't make it true.  We must be more vigilant to seek the truth today.  Even evening news today seems to have included more soft news and human-interest stories than in the past, seeming to believe we are more likely to watch if we are entertained. 

The professionalism of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite is difficult to find but important to seek.  Thank goodness for the internet which brings amazing information into our homes, but watch out for the misinformation that it also brings.  Those who choose to distort reality have no moral code.  They have even attempted to challenge the truth of Anne Frank's Journal.  

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, don't let someone convince you that it is a swan.          

Battling Abuses in the 1800s, a Series #3

Reform-minded journalist had existed during earlier years of the 1800s, but as the century drew to a close a new crop of journalists known as Muckrakers appeared.  The earlier journalists had been more likely to write their articles for newspapers, but in the late 1800s magazines gained popularity, and longer, well-written stories had a place for publication.  McClure's was one of these magazines, willing to give journalists space to develop thorough examinations of business, political and social abuses in need of reform.  These magazines became known as muckraking magazines, and the journalists, and occasional fiction authors whose stories exposed abuses, were called muckrakers.

The term is attributed to Theodore Roosevelt, who borrowed the term from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. In that classic, the Interpreter shows Christiana a man who can "look no way but downwards, with a muck-rake in his hand...[raking] to himself the straws, the small sticks, and dust on the floor."  Christiana understands what she is being shown, for the man is so focused on the muck that he is ignoring the Celestial crown being offered to him.  She says, "I know somewhat the meaning of this, for this is a figure of a man of this world, is it not..."

Although most of us have not read Pilgrim's Progress, it would have been familiar to his listeners in 1906 when President Theodore Roosevelt used a reference to the book to criticize journalists who took their investigative writing too far.  The President said, "the men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck."

In oposition to Muckrakers were other Newspapers

The issue with investigative reporting was then, and continues today, to be judged by whether journalists are an essential check on a free society or are a disruptive nuisance.  The founding fathers understood the importance of freedom of the press to enlighten an informed citizenry.  Unfortunately, the professionalism of members of the press has always varied, from those who speak and write with a commitment to accuracy versus those who distort the truth to intentionally mislead readers or to slander public figures for readers' amusement.  

At the same time ethical journalists were producing reform articles, other writers published in so-called yellow journals, hawked stories of scandal, crime, and sensationalism for entertainment and malice rather than purposeful information.  Those publishing motivations continue today.

That is not to say that legitimate journalists should never write stories involving scandal, crime, and sensational facts, whether they were writing in the 1800s and early 1900s or today.  The distinction is that yellow journalism (or what we refer to today as tabloid stories) invent and exaggerate stories with little regard for accuracy, to titillate, shock and amuse readers, in contrast to ethical journalists who seek to report information in an objective, impartial way.  While the facts may still be sensational, reputable journalists rely on accurate sources and avoid exaggeration.  Or, as Roosevelt said, ethical journalists "know when to stop raking the muck."

The subjects reported by professional journalists in the late 1800s and early 1900s have similarities with what journalists cover today, although news today is more likely to be seen on television than in newspapers.  Today's news still includes subjects reported in Isaac Werner's era, such as: Lincoln Steffens "Tweed Days in St. Louis exposing political corruption; Ida Tarbell, exposing ruthless business tactics and influence; and Samuel Hopkins Adams, revealing false claims by pharmaceutical companies.

In Isaac Werner's times, U.S. Senators were not elected by popular vote but rather were chosen by the various elected state senators.  The enactment of the 17th Amendment, which allows the voters in each state to elect their two U.S. senators, had been one of the key demands of the People's Party.  A series of articles written by muckraker David Graham Phillips and published in "Cosmopolitan" magazine in February of 1906 is given significant credit toward the passage of the amendment allowing the people to directly choose their senators rather than having their elected state senators make the choices for them.

The importance that the press has played in digging through the muck of American Society is shown in these few examples, as is the criticism journalists must confront when presidents and other powerful people don't like the muck they uncover.

Next week the series continues.

Who Told You That?

Edward R. Morrow, W.W. II Correspondent

Am I the only one who remembers coming home from school with some bit of information I had learned from a classmate, and when I repeated what I had been told, my parent would say, "Who told you that?!"  It was good training...especially for a future lawyer and author.  An appropriate balance of skepticism is good for all of us.

It is what our founding fathers understood when they recognized the need for a free press in order for a democracy to survive.  But let me return to my childhood memories.  Sometimes the source of my information wasn't very accurate.  Sometimes it was a bit of misinformation given intentionally to fool me.  Sometimes it was honestly given by someone mistaken.  Sometimes it came from a trust-worthy source.  I find that life is still like that.  As the old saying goes, "Consider the Source."

Nellie Bly

When I am standing in the grocery store line and I see a tabloid with a story about some movie star and his alleged romances, do I assume the headlines are true?  No!  Might they be?  Maybe.  If we know that certain tabloids exaggerate and distort the truth, why are they allowed to continue publishing lies and misrepresentations?  Because we have decided censorship is a more dangerous risk to society than the likelihood that educated, intelligent people will believe utter nonsense.  The legal remedy is for the person who is slandered to take action against the newspaper, but a more obvious remedy is the public's responsibility to stop buying tabloids that they know are publishing nonsense.  Reputable newspapers employing professional reporters and writers to bring Americans the news are facing declining subscriptions, while tabloids who titillate rather than investigate seem to be surviving.  Shouldn't we remember what our parents taught us and ask, "Who told you that?" and  "Consider the source!"

Professional news reporters work hard to check their sources, seek corroboration of multiple sources, and, as the Code of Ethics of the American Society of Newspaper Editors says:  "Thus journalism demands of its practitioners not only industry and knowledge but also the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist's singular obligation.  (See prior 2 weeks' blogs below, if you missed them.)

Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.  Walter Cronkite

Detroit Free Press Front Page

Last week I mentioned that even in Isaac Werner's time, the lengths to which news gathers would go to document a story was often impressive.  Nellie Bly (1864-1922) was the pen name of an American journalist named Elizabeth Jane Cochran.  In 1887, in order to investigate reports of brutality and neglect of women confined to a Lunatic Asylum, she faked her own insanity to gain admission.  Once inside, she was given spoiled food and filthy water, was tied with rope to other patients, was exposed to frigid bathwater, rats and abusive nurses along with the other women.  She even discovered women who were locked in the asylum despite being as sane as she was.  Her report, not only published in the newspaper but later as the book Ten Days in a Mad House, exposed those abuses, and that brave investigative reporter and her newspaper brought about changes.  

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.  Benjamin Franklin

William G. Giggart (1947-2001) was the son of an American officer stationed in Germany at the time of his birth.  He began his own career as a commercial photographer, but his interest in news led him to photojournalism in 1985, and he covered international events in such places as Israel, Northern Ireland, and the Fall of the Berlin Wall.  Therefore, it is not surprising that he was taking street-view photographs at the World Trade Center's North Tower when it collapsed.  When his remains were discovered in the debris, a bag containing his cameras and a flash card with his last photographs were beside him.  His photographs document the final moments of that event.  Pictures by Giggart and other photographers who took the images on many front pages and television broadcasts allowed all Americans to see what devastation had been done in New York City that day.

Our liberty depends on freedom of the press.  Thomas Jefferson

James Foley, Photo: Nicole Tung

James Foley (1973-2014) was the oldest of five children, born in New Hampshire.  He graduated from Marquette University, from the MFA Program for Poets & Writers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.  He began his career as a teacher but changed to pursue journalism, and that decision took him to Afghanistan and Libya, where he witnessed the killing of fellow photojournalist Anton Hammerl.  He was himself held prisoner with three others for 44 days.  Although he returned home, his belief that "front line journalism is important [without which] we can't tell the world how bad it might be," led him to return to cover the Syrian Civil War.  He was captured and beheaded by ISIL.  His mother posted the following:  "We have never been prouder of our son Jim. He gave his life trying to expose the world to the suffering of the Syrian people."

Wherever despotism abounds, the sources of public information are the first to be brought under its control.  Where ever the cause of liberty is making its way, one of its highest accomplishments is the guarantee of the freedom of the press.  Calvin Coolidge

Watching news reporters jostle and shout questions at politicians and others often seems like an undignified and offensive exercise of freedom, but as Justice Hugo Black said, "The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.  The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.  Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."

Civilian Casualties from W.W. I

The Statistics Portal represents itself as assembling statistics and studies from more than 22,500 sources, and their site includes a chart showing the number of journalists killed worldwide from 1995-2017.  It should be understood that the chart does not indicate the cause of death, and many journalists are serving in very dangerous parts of the world.  However, it is worth recognizing that however they died, they were there doing the job of collecting news.  A sampling at five year intervals shows 64 deaths in 1995, 32 in 2000, 64 in 2005, 58 in 2010, 81 in 2015, and 50 in the final year of the chart.  The lowest figure was 23 in 1998, and the highest figures were 85 in 2006, 88 in 2007, and 87 in 2012.  Like James Foley, these news gathers put their lives in harms way so that we could know what was going on in the world.  These statistics do not tell us their names, their ages, nor their gender, and even if we cannot know why they chose to do what they did, we can respect them for being our eyes to world events.  

Freedom of conscience, of education, of speech, of assembly are among the very fundamentals of democracy and all of them would be nullified should freedom of the press ever be successfully challenged.  Franklin D. Roosevelt

Remember, you can enlarge the images by clicking on them.

Early History of Access to News

Boston, Thursday Sept. 25th, 1690, Printer, Benjamin Harris

When the Founding Fathers spoke of the importance of protecting the Peoples' access to news, they were probably thinking in terms of broadsheets and newspapers.  The early newspapers in the Colonies were quite simple, perhaps only broadsheets, published as a sideline by printers.  Broadsheets are defined as "A large piece of paper printed with information on one side only," the sort of thing we might call a poster. a handbill, or a placard.  The term continues in the present day to refer to a newspaper with a large format, also used to describe a tabloid or a news-sheet.

Publick Occurrences is considered one of the earliest, if not the earliest, newspaper published in the British North American Colonies, for it was four pages long and promised monthly publication.  Boston residents loved it, but the British authorities did not.  British law provided that "no person keep any printing-press for printing, nor any book, pamphlet or other matter whatsoever [without] especial leave and license first obtained."  Harris had not obtained that permission, and British authorities banned further publication and seized and destroyed every copy they could find.  The one copy that is known to have survived is preserved in the British Library.

The meaning of Hamilton's argument in last week's blog, saying there was no need to expressly protect something that could already freely be done, is better understood in the context of what happened to Benjamin Harris' newspaper.  Since Harris did not get permission to publish, his newspapers were destroyed.  Hamilton was saying that since no permission was required in the new nation being formed, there was no need to protect the free publication of newspapers.  Of course, our founding fathers decided differently, and the 1st Amendment does protect a free press.

The Publishing of broadsheets and newspapers did continue under British rule of the colonies, particularly by merchants.  What was called a "partisan press" also developed, in which biased support for political parties or platforms were published. In 1734 when the satirical attacks by a man named Zenger so angered the British governor that he sued Zenger for criminal libel, the jury acquitted Zenger.  By the close of the colonial period there were 24 weekly newspapers in the 13 colonies, and satirical attacks on the government were common practice.

Benjamin Franklin's older brother, James was the first to publish a newspaper superior in quality to the unprofessional news sheets that preceeded James Franklin's New-England Courant.  The style and format drew heavily on The Spectator, a British publication.

The new nation brought with it creation of  newspapers clearly aligned with particular political parties.  The parties threw vulgar insults back and forth.  For example, when Federalist Alexander Hamilton convinced Noah Webster to edit a Federalist newspaper, the Jeffersonian Republicans called Webster "a pusillanimous, half-begotten, self-dubbed patriot", and "incurable lunatic", and "a deceitful newsmonger...Pedagogue and Quack", "a traitor to the cause of Federalism", and "a great fool, and a barefaced liar."

The reality that the animosity in print got so far out of bounds seemed to show  almost everyone changes were needed.  The newspapers of the Revolution became a unifying force, stressing the common purpose to come together and see the war with  Britain to a successful outcome.  Unfortunately, old political differences were behind the passage of the 1798 Alien Sedition laws by Federalists for the purpose of stifling what they regarded as libels by editors with whom they disagreed.  The tactic backfired, and public opinion shifted away from the Federalists and toward the Jeffersonian Republicans.

Newspaper growth in the young nation

This blog is not intended to be a complete study of the evolution of a free press in America, but rather it is intended to show that the process was not always tidy.  Gradually, the editorials shifted from the use of pseudonyms and unsigned editorials and articles, toward a willingness to stand behind what they wrote.  The "Penny Press" made newspapers more affordable, and the number of newspapers grew.  Specialized journalism expanded, with foreign language newspapers for new immigrants, and other targeted groups including religious, educational, agricultural and commercial newspapers.

As settlers headed West, small town newspapers flourished, often politically aligned with a particular party.  Isaac B. Werner was part of this movement, and his county seat of St. John, had two popular weekly  newspapers-the Populist County Capital  and the Republican St. John News.

An era of Yellow Journalism

The late 1800s were also an era of "Yellow Journalism," during which time news was often sensationalized to increase circulation.  The drawing at left, done by Frederic Remington, was published by William Randolph Hearst's newspaper as part of the effort to stir momentum for war with Spain in Cuba.  Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were accused of "war mongering" with sensational "Yellow Journalism" in their news and images.  In a time before camera journalists, artists could misrepresent events, and today the ability to manipulate images is even more sophisticated and concerning.

It was also a period in which investigative reporters exposed social injustices.  One particularly noteworthy case was the female reporter, Nellie Bly, who contrived to be admitted into a mental facility in order to describe factually the mistreatment of those admitted, for legitimate mental illness but also falsely admitted by vengeful guardians and relatives or admitted for temporary conditions and refused release after recovery.  Her expose, Ten Days in a Mad-House, exposed the desperate need for reform.  Without a free press, those abuses might have gone unnoticed or intentionally ignored.

By the 1900s newspapers had grown to the extent where they seemed like an invincible force for delivering news.  As described in last week's blog, editors and responsible journalists saw the need for professional standards of integrity, and they formed the American Society of Newspaper Editors.  Nearly every family subscribed to at least one daily newspaper, and legendary family owned newspapers became a sort of American Royalty.  The wealth and power of American newspapers seemed fixed.

In 1970 there were 1,748 daily newspapers in the United States.  By 1980 there had been a slight decrease, but in 1990 the number had dropped to 1,611, dropping to 1,480 by 2000.  The decline slowed, even ticking upward in between 2012 and 2013, but the decline plunged downward until in 2016 there were only 1,286 daily newspapers in the United States.  Although I do not have the numbers, I suspect the number of daily newspapers has continued to decline sharply.

From 256,800 employees in the newspaper industry in the United States in March of 2010, there has been a gradual reduction of employees until March of 2016 there were 183,200.  The unfortunate reality is that even large newspapers have cut the number of reporters actively engaged in searching out the news.  More reliance on use of the Associated Press means less insistent independent digging for the facts.  

The 1st Amendment may protect a free press, but what it takes for newspapers to seek out the truth in an increasingly complex world doesn't come for free.

Remember, you can click on images to enlarge them.

Getting the News Right

Cartoon from the County Capital during the Populist Era

More than a decade ago, when I was doing research for a book, I was speaking to a man whose family was dealing with one of the issues covered in my manuscript.  During the interview I commented something like this: 'With such an important health issue, I just can't understand how so few people are aware of it.'  He replied:  'Every morning it is as if a big truck backed up to your front door and dumped its entire load of important news on your front step.  You just can't be informed about everything.'  I may not remember the words exactly, but the imagery of his answer has stayed with me since then.  That was before so much of our news was spread by the internet and smart phones.  Most of us still subscribed to daily newspapers.  We watched the evening news on one of the main channels, delivered by news anchors we trusted, on programs that lasted 30 minutes.

How different it is today.  Those imaginary trucks are backing up to our door step all day and night, dumping information from sources about which we know very little.  Cookies and algorithms track and modify what we see and hear, and we have no idea about the education, experience, bias, and motives of those who spread information.

I have had friends tell me that all of this bombardment of news is so overwhelming that they have just tuned everything out.  But, how can we be informed if we do not acquire information from somewhere.

On March 23, 2017 I posted a blog titled Freedom of Speech and Accurate News that provided some history about past efforts to insure that Americans received fair and balanced news on radio and television through what was called The Fairness Doctrine.  The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) abolished that doctrine in 1987.  You might want to read that blog post again to refresh your memory concerning that history.

In No. 84 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, in arguing against a Bill of Rights, asked,  "Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed."  Ultimately, the nation chose to have a Bill of Rights, in which freedom of the press is a specific protection.  Yet, scholars still argue exactly what it means.

If you are curious to find the answer in Supreme Court cases, there are two cases you might want to read.  Near v. Minnesota, decided in 1931, held that "A Minnesota law that imposed permanent injunctions against the publication of newspapers with 'malicious, scandalous, and defamatory' content violated the 1st Amendment."  In 1964, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan held that "A newspaper can be held liable for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official only if the statements were made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth."  While those cases are important, newspapers are no longer our primary source of news.

Across America major newspapers have ceased operation, turned to  online publication only, reduced publication to three days a week, sold far below past value, or announced approaching closing dates.  Even the storied New York Times and the Washington Post have been forced to make drastic economic choices.

In 1774, the First Continental Congress recognized the importance of a free press as essential to:  "...the  advancement of truth, science, morality and arts in general..."  As for its importance to the manner in which a government conducts itself, they advocated the importance of:  "...its ready communication of thoughts between subjects [citizens], and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs."  Yet today the press seems more capable of agitating citizens than assisting in bringing citizens together to promote just and honorable conduct by those elected to do the people's business.

Is that the fault of the press or is it the fault of those consumers of the news they produce?  Are we seeking news sources that inform us or do we prefer that our preexisting opinions be affirmed?  In October of 1922 the American Society of Newspaper Editors was formed to demand of their fellow practitioners "...not only industry and knowledge but also the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist's singular obligation."  In order to "preserve, protect and strengthen the bond of trust and respect between American journalists and the American people," the ANSE stated six ethical and professional obligations of their profession, quoted in part below.

1.  "...to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time..."

2.  "Freedom of the press belongs to the people.  It must be defended against encroachment or assault from any quarter, public or private."

3.  "Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict."

4.  "Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly.  Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy..."

5. Sound practice "...demands  clear distinction for the reader between news reports and opinion...clearly identified."

6.  "Journalists should respect the rights of people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of their news reports.  ...Pledges of confidentiality...must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly."  The full statement of principles can be found at the ASNE website.

Distrust of the news is nothing new, as the political cartoon from the County Capital published in St. John, Kansas during the populist movement  clearly indicates.  None of us likes to hear news with which we disagree, but we are not well served to ignore the news or to discount everything that fails to align with our opinions.  Applying the ANSE standards to the sources of news we follow is a good test of how well they are serving the public's need to be accurately informed.

    

Freedom of Speech and Accurate News

Imagine living in a time and place before internet, before television, even before radio.  Then, imagine you were living on a homestead claim far from the nearest town.  How did news spread?  In Isaac's community it spread by word of mouth and by newspaper.  In the rural community where Isaac lived he had many neighbors within a few minute's walk, and the 'grape-vine' was quite effective.  In addition, there was a rural mail carrier to deliver letters and newspapers, as well as the farming journals to which Isaac subscribed.  Freedom of speech and the press were alive and well!

Yet, because of such Constitutional protection, the accuracy of what was published was subject to little or no regulation.  Newspapers, not to mention Isaac's local neighbors, had their own bias which colored their news.  On the other hand, the close proximity of neighbors provided not only the rapid disbursement of gossip and rumor but also the opportunity for what is sometimes called "a marketplace of ideas," the result of many diverse opinions allowing a collective consensus to be reached, the theory being that neighborhood conversations will begin to form a generally accepted point of view, wise or foolish as it may be.  In most communities, including Isaac's own, respected leaders emerge, and their comments carry more weight, sometimes so much weight that no opposing opinions gain any traction.  Yet, then as now, freedom of speech allows anyone with an opposing point of view to express it, if he dares.

When the progressive movement reached Isaac's community, the strongly Republican neighborhood split, about half adhering to their Republican opinions but the other half (drawn from both old parties but particularly former Democrats) giving Populism a try.  In one 7th district state election two popular men ran against each other, and the People's Party candidate won locally by a single vote, neighbors almost equally divided.  There was extensive back-and-forth between the St. John News and the County Capital during the campaigning!

The written press of Isaac's time did not worry too much about balanced reporting, and their bias was clear.  However, there were many newspapers, and if one got its facts wrong there was probably another one who would call them out.  The government stayed out of it!

Edward R. Murrow

With the arrival of radio and television, it was necessary for stations to acquire broadcasting licenses, and the airways did not allow for the same proliferation of stations that news print had allowed.  The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) decided that it was important that stations given broadcasting licenses be honest, equitable, and balanced in their reporting.  In 1949 they imposed the Fairness Doctrine.  Broadcast license holders were required to present controversial issues of public importance to accommodate an informed public and those issues had to be presented accurately, fairly, and in a balanced manner.  The information could be presented through news, editorials, or shows, and opposing views did not have to receive equal time, (the equal time requirement relates to political candidates), but the purpose was to give the public a diversity of information.  Although the United States Supreme Court had ruled favorably on the Constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, in 1987 the FCC abolished the doctrine.  It is widely believed that Ronald Reagan instigated the revocation, and three of the four sitting FCC commissioners at the time of revocation had been named by President Reagan, the fourth having been named by Richard Nixon.

Subsequent efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine have all failed, one effort in 2007 having been opposed in the House by the current Vice-President, Mike Pence; however, President Obama also opposed the revival of the Doctrine during his time in office, and it was during Obama's presidency  that the language that implemented the old Fairness Doctrine was removed during a broader editing of the Federal Register.  The abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine has not been decided by which party occupied the White House.

It is widely agreed that the demise of the Fairness Doctrine seems associated with the political polarization in the United States, if not a contributing factor.  Is this conclusion reasonable?  In Isaac's time there was no Fairness Doctrine, and even when the Fairness Doctrine existed, it did not apply to newspapers.  Was the doctrine really all that important?

Journalism is a profession, and reputable journalists strive for accuracy in delivering the news.  In modern times, the traditional thinking has been that people want to know the truth, and careless or one-sided coverage of the news would result in loss of viewership and subscribers.  That economic reality was assumed to keep reporters honest, even if their sense of professional ethics did not.

Recently, however, the question has become whether it is truth or affirmation of viewers' bias which determines economic success for the news media.  The importance of a free and independent press capable of delivering accurate news to Americans has been considered so important that the press is sometimes called the "Fourth Branch" of our government.  Presidents of both parties have had their quarrels with the news but have also used the media to their advantage at times.  Presidents have always understood the important role of the press in our government, but perhaps that role has never been more debated than it is today.

Next week's blog will take a look at just how complicated changing technologies are making things.

The Founding Fathers & Freedom of the Press

It may be remembered from last week's post that George Washington considered Freedom of Speech so important that without it, he feared Americans would be rendered "dumb and silent."  I'm not sure whether he used the term "dumb" to mean 'without speech' or 'stupid.'  Either way, it was clear that Washington regarded freedom of speech very highly.

There was a great debate among our Founding Fathers regarding the need for a Bill of Rights.  Some felt there was no need, since what wasn't expressly given away by citizens to the government was a freedom they retained.  Others felt that a Bill of Rights was essential to protect particular freedoms by enumerating them.  Still others questioned how it would be possible to name every possible freedom meant to be retained by citizens.  Some arguments were a matter of political practicality--opposition to adding a Bill of Rights was motivated by the goal of getting the Constitution ratified as promptly as possible, without getting tangled up in debates over a Bill of Rights. Obviously, the Constitution was ratified and a Bill of Rights was added, which courts have construed to protect our freedoms.

Representative Journals of the United States, 1885; Newspapers and their editors shown:  1st Row:  The Union and Adviser, Wm Purcell; The omaha Daily Bee, Edward Rosewater; The Boston Daily Globe, Chs. H. Taylor; Boston Morning Journal, Wm Warland Clapp; The Kansas City Times, Morrison Mumford; The Pittsburg Diispatch, Eugene M. O'Neill.  2nd Row:  Albany Evening Journal, John A. Sleicher; The Milwaukee Sentinel, Horace Rublee; The Philadelphia Record, Wm M. Singerly; The New York Times, Geo. Jones; The Philadelphia Press, Chs. Emory Smith; The Daily Inter Ocean, Wm Penn Nixon; The news & Courier, Francis Warington Dawson.  3rd Row:  Buffalo Express, James Newson Smith; The Daily Pioneer Press, Jos. A. Wheelock; The Atlanta Constitution, Henry W. Grady and Evan Howell; San Francisco Chronicle, Michael H. de Young; The Washington Post, Stilson Hitchins.  (Enlarge by clicking on the image.)

Freedom of the Press was one of those freedoms about which concerns were raised as ratification of the Constitution was debated.  Some states had already included freedom of the press in their state constitutions.  In #84 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton addressed concerns about the need for expressly protecting freedom of the press.  He did not disagree with the importance of a free press but rather based his argument on the impractically of drafting such protection.  "What is the liberty of the press?" he asked.  "Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?"  Hamilton continued, "...whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general opinion of the people and of the government."

Yet, ultimately it was decided that a Bill of Rights should be added, and the First Amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Coverage of the Sinking of the Maine

That freedom is not completely without limit.  For example, courts have ruled that a man cannot stand up in a theater and shout "Fire!" when there is none, to cause a panic that would likely cause injury to those attempting to flee a nonexistent danger.  Pornography is another example of limited speech, as is slandar.  In addition to legal limits, social customs have also limited speech in such ways as disapproving vulgarity, expecting the courtesy of quiet during religious observances and cultural performances, and observing traditions of sportsmanship during athletic competitions.  Each generation has shaped those customs.

From a political perspective, free speech and a free press allow issues to be debated and policies to be shaped.  In the case of Whitney v. California, decided in 1927, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote:  "...freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth."  In the 1880s and 1890s of Isaac Werner's time, publishers like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer exerted huge influence across the nation, Hearst with the San Francisco Examiner, published in San Francisco, and Pulitizer with The World, published in New York. But, as described in last week's blog, countless small newspapers in towns across the nation also exerted their influence.

Coverage of the Sinking of the Maine

The images of front page coverage of the sinking of the Maine in Cuba illustrate the power of newspapers to inflame national support for declaring war against Spain, the New York Journal describing the explosion as "the work of an enemy" and The World declaring "caused by bomb or torpedo.  The advance toward war was already underway when investigation led to the conclusion that explosion of a boiler on the ship was the likely cause.

Today, many once powerful newspapers have ceased to exist, and the newspapers still being published in small towns have shrunk to a few pages which are no longer published daily.  Americans are more likely to get their news on television and the internet than from a daily newspaper, and concern is growing about altnews and 'alternativefacts.'

However, questions about truth and accuracy in the press are nothing new.  In doing the research for my manuscript, I found one interesting example.  Homesteaders in Kansas and elsewhere had gone deeply in debt when prices for their crops were high, and they had mortgaged their farms to pay for livestock, implements, fencing, and improvements such as buildings and windmills.  When crop prices fell and interest rates for the renewal of their loans soared, they were at risk of foreclosure.  A fear spread that English investors would buy up the mortgages and American farmers would fall victim to a serfdom like tenant farmers in Ireland.  Political parties added prohibitions against foreign ownership of land to their platforms--not just the populists but also the two mainstream parties, and states passed laws prohibiting foreign ownership of land.  Yet, while there were examples in Kansas and other states of communities in which settlers from other nations came as a group to settle, I struggled to find examples of foreign investors attempting to replicate the Irish system of tenant farmers in America, although many newspapers warned of that threat.

Next week's blog will explore the continuing role of the press in America, both in the past and the present.

The County Capital & The St. John News

Ad from the County Capital

For those of you who follow this blog, you have frequently seen references to The County Capital.  It was the newspaper to which Isaac Werner subscribed and for which he occasionally wrote.  It was the newspaper of the progressive movement, and it unabashedly supported populist ideas.

The St. John News was the Republican newspaper.  Its bias was equally obvious, for which they made no apologies.  That was the practice of that era, and people subscribed to the paper with which they agreed.

The community of Stafford had the Stafford Democrat, which declared its perspective in its name, so it appears that if you lived in Stafford County in the 1880s, you were able to subscribe to a newspaper that printed the news with the bias that allowed you to read the news from the perspective you wanted to read.  

Just as I have often quoted from one of President Bush's advisors, "People read to be affirmed, not to be informed," and that was true in Isaac's time, just as it is today.  While it might be thought that the internet, which makes access to information so easily available, would make people more broadly informed, that has not appeared to be the case.

Political cartoon re wealthy control of the press

Freedom of the press is one of our most valued promises, alongside freedom of speech.  They are really just two sides of the same coin, for one is a form of speech published widely and the other is speech which may or may not be more limited.  Our first President, George Washington, said:  "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."  But what if that freedom is used to protect misinformation and propaganda as well as factual information?

Americans are generous in protecting these freedoms.  As lawyer Alan Dershowitz has said:  "Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views.  It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent. 

Clearly, in Isaac's time the use of newspapers for political purposes was commonplace.  Political parties even endorsed specific newspapers as their official organ.  The St. John News made a joke of having lost subscribers due to the popularity of the populist movement in their area, saying 'now our former subscribers have to borrow a copy to read the News.'

The importance of free speech is not just an American ideal, however. French novelist, Marcel Proust, who lived from 1871 to 1922, wrote:  "As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress."

Ad from the County Capital

Even earlier, French lawyer and member of the Committee of Public Safety, Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) wrote:  "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."  That enlightened quote must be considered, however, with awareness that he is perhaps best known for his role in the French Revolution's Reign of Terror and his support for political killings.

In researching the populist movement that swept the nation in the 1880s and 1890s, and which found such acceptance in Kansas, newspapers were a valuable source for my research.  Even small towns had multiple newspapers.  Without radio, television or the internet, people got their news from the newspapers and from orators that traveled the country to speak at large mass rallies.  It was an exciting time in Kansas.  Next week I will share more history about balancing freedom of speech and the press with the delivery of information for an informed public.

The ads and the political cartoon are from the County Capital newspaper during the late 1880s and early 1890s.