The Free Press Under Attack
Each of the many challenges facing humankind is exacerbated by our failure to realize how grim the situation is. Obviously, this applies to things like climate change, where, remarkably, we have a whole political party in the U.S. in which most adherents question the validity of the entire theory. Yet perhaps even more insidious is the poor level of understanding we bring to the suppression of journalists and the free press.
Here in America, we have a president whose support hovers at a not-too-terrible 40%, regardless of how hateful or inane his most recent twitter tirade. Despite his busy schedule, he makes time to revoke journalists’ access to the White House, label 60 different mainstream news media and events “fake news,” and conduct his bromance with Putin, who has had many dozens of journalists tortured and/or executed.
The U.S. ranks 48th out of 180 countries in the 2019 world rankings on freedom of the press, down from 45th in 2018.
Talk about taking a plunge: Brazilian strongman Jair Bolsonaro is conducting an investigation targeting highly decorated journalist and constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald in a brutal violation of press freedom, and Reporters Without Borders (the organization performing the rankings) is going to take a very dim view of that. Of course, at number 105, they don’t have that much further to fall, and Brazil’s decision to misprison political rival Lula isn’t exactly inspiration, either.
In politics, many things come and go over time; the pendulum swings to and fro. The problem here is that press freedom isn’t like women’s hem lines or men’s lapel widths. Once the media is repressed to the point that it can no longer hold government accountable, autocracy has free rein, which means that it’s very hard to restore democracy.
These are watershed years for human civilization; it’s going to go one way or the other.
Craig,
Sadly, your obsessive hatred of the current President has you in danger of becoming merely a leftist propaganda parrot for disinformation.
You know you can’t substantiate your “40%” claim, because it is indeed “fake” news, but now you make the absurd claim the President is actively restricting media freedom by criticizing journalists or not speaking to those he regards as offensive and objectionable!
Please show me the section in the Constitution which prohibits criticizing the media? Please show me the part in the constitution which provides the press with inquisitorial power to compel interrogation?
The President has done nothing to harm free speech. The Press may write what they like and do so every day !
In fact, this President has taken active steps to protect the right to free speech on college campuses.
But the saddest thing is your craven and hypocritical attempt to distract from the very serious attacks by leftist thugs, and politicians, to silence journalists with beatings, threats of rape, murder, sexual assaults of females journalists, home invasions and threats to kill the families of journalists (including kidnapping) small children, by leftist activists.
Many of the current democrat hopefuls have endorsed or refused to condemn these activities!
Don’t you feel even a little bit of shame to be part of such activity? In your heart of hearts, don’t you feel just a little cringe at trying to distract from this serious threat by trotting out an old, silly and easily disproved lie about the President?
The President delivered a surprisingly inclusive and even inspirational Independence day speech.
What part of that speech did you find so offensive ?
Was it where he said ““As we gather this evening, in the joy of freedom, we remember that we all share a truly extraordinary heritage. Together, we are part of one of the greatest stories ever told,..the story of America.”
Hmm,.. or maybe when he alluded to example of inspirational Americans, and the progress of great causes such as;
The struggle for independence, the fight to abolish slavery and secure women’s suffrage and civil rights ?
Maybe it was the ‘great Americans’ who in his words “defined our national character” ?
Maybe you feel he was wrong to select, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and Jackie Robinson ?
Or maybe you dislike, Lewis and Clark,Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright brothers, Amelia Earhart and the Apollo 11 astronauts?
Or maybe you feel “we will plant the American flag on Mars” because “for Americans, nothing is impossible”is wrong, because in your opinion America should be a small nation without dreams of space conquest?
Maybe you object to the examples of modern-day heroes among the audience of attendees, such as Emil Freireich, a doctor who revolutionized the treatment of childhood leukemia, and Clarence Henderson, who helped lead the sit-in at a Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C. in 1960 ?
The President thanked Clarence Henderson, of whom he said, “Almost six decades later, he sits tonight in a seat of honor, I want to thank Clarence for making this a much better place for all Americans.”?
Was it that the President’s words brought tears of pride to this no elderly hero of the darkest and most dangerous days of desegregation, or is it partisan hatred that Clarence Johnson and other black leaders support of the President makes a mockery of your false claims the President is a racist?
Naturally, you would have disliked the President’s celebration of the sacrifice made by the U.S. armed forces!
So what was it that you objected to the most?
Was it that the majority, the vast majority of Americans who watched or listened to the speech listened with pride and approval of the sentiments expressed by the President about his love of America?
Yeah, that’s it, isn’t it, eh? Nothing to sneer or snigger at!
So in desperation, you must invent something.
You want to talk about ” Press freedom” ? You want to talk about human rights?
Then stop expressing “faux” outrage at the President’s legitimate right to defend himself against the highly paid spoiled bullies from CNN.
Instead, start asking yourself why you don’t raise your voice to protect the civil liberties and “Press freedom’ of journalist like Andy Ngo, Taylor Lorenz and scores of others from leftist thugs?
Your continued silence speaks volumes about your credibility!
Craig,
Just as I closed my comment an excellent example of a Free speech issue arose.
The hobbyist website for something as harmless as knitting patterns (8 million members) a “community forum” which has developed in to a sort of chat room and “stitch’n’ bitch” has just announced it will no longer accept comments or members who support the President or conservative politics.
At first the reason seemed reasonable, the explanation of “Some longtime Ravelry users found the toxicity of online political discourse inappropriate their quiet hobbyist refuge.”.
However, when it was noticed that the pro-democrat, pro-progressive discourse was continued a harder line admission emerged by the site moderators who admitted ;
“We are definitely not banning politics discussion, only hate groups and those voicing support for Trump.”
The site also pointed out that it had come under pressure from various “important” activists who demanded this policy change or Ravelry would find itself a victim of continual guerilla cyber attacks and physical intimidation.
The culprits ? Various leftist group’s coordinated by anti-fa and and obscure offshoot of a foundation funded by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos.
So the knitting pattern’s for ‘fuck trump’ scarves and hates remain, but ‘Build the wall,’ ‘God is love,’ ‘Trump 2020’ are banned.
The site spokespeople got even crazier claiming another reason why discussion of trump’s name was banned is he was clearly a racist. (no evidence advanced in support).
Despite receiving an appeal from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People advising such a policy was not only unhelpful but liable to stir animosity,
Ravelry responded to the nearly 300 persons of color who were long term members of the site and declared themselves Trump supporters that the term racist when applied to the President was not only false but offensive, by “banning those members for supporting racism”.
A request by journalist to know the racial mix of Ravelry moderators and executives, was refused. (Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) is investigating a number of complaints lodged against Ravelery by various groups and individuals).
It may seem a petty issue, but this is just one example of a war of intolerance. Hate breeds hate.
It would be fair enough if Ravelry banned all political comments, but censoring only one side show either bias or cowardice by giving into cyber-bullies.
Of course the conservatives and trump supporters could simply create their own site, and fight the leftist cyber-bullies, but this is exactly what they want, a bitter, divided America.
Scary stuff !
Craig, i beseech you, join me and all moderates everywhere in putting a stop to this madness. It’s time to speak out against the lunacy of the violent intolerant left, and the misanthropes claiming to represent the ultra-right.
It doesn’t take much, just the courage to speak up against intolerance when it occurs from any source. It’s especially important to put your own house in order first.