"No, no, no. You're finished. Sit down." --Donald Trump to MSNBC and Telemundo news anchor Jose Diaz-Balart as he tried to ask questions of the candidate.
Trump staff ban Des Moines Register reporters from a news event after the newspaper's editorial page urged Trump to abandon his presidential campaign.
What's next? Banning any journalist who dares to ask tough questions, or any citizen who dares to disagree with the candidate?
Politicians have always tried to control their message, sometimes by trying to control the medium through which it flows to the public.
They do this partly by ignoring the question, and partly by not consenting to interviews by those likely to ask tough questions. Rachel Maddow, for example, an avowed liberal and an aggressive interviewer, has acknowledged that few Republicans agree to appear on her television program.
But even neutral reporters -- those who ask tough questions and push for answers -- often are unable to get one-on-one interviews with some candidates, especially those who insist on controlling the interview.
Anderson Cooper of CNN is a good interviewer, but Donald Trump easily dominated the interview, repeatedly interrupting and/or ignoring the question.
Walter Cronkite, far and away one of the best television journalists of the 20th Century, relates in his memoir of the time Lyndon Johnson -- then Senate Majority Leader -- showed up for a news interview with a panel of CBS journalists and handed out a list of questions that he insisted would be asked by the panel, including at least one that must not be asked. Cronkite demurred, and rather than lose the interview with LBJ, he would try to steer the panel away from that particular subject. Sure enough, however, as soon as the program went on the air, that very question was the first one asked.
Even today, in some countries newspapers and broadcast media are shut down when they report something that the government doesn't like.
There are some in America who feel the news media are "out of control," and should be reined in. Granted, there are excesses and rudeness by some reporters. But politicians also are prone to excesses and rudeness, even to spouting character attacks, half-truths and downright lies. However, where would the voting public be without an active news media checking facts and exposing hypocrisy? The public also has a very effective way of dealing with incompetent news reporting or poor commentary -- change the TV channel, or stop buying the publication. In addition, there are laws dealing with libel. But the defenses against libel accusations are these: The story is true. It is provably true. It was published without malice. (This last was established in the case of a full-page advertisement which turned out not to be true. However, the target chose not to sue the buyer of the ad space, but rather the owner of the newspaper, who had more money.)
Behind all this, moreover, is the fundamental right of free speech and freedom of the press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Always remember. meanwhile, that the Constitution does not grant these rights. Rather, it guarantees rights we already have; rights that we were born with.
The point is this: Political leaders attempt to control the flow of information, including the questions to be asked and the people who might ask uncomfortable questions.
Journalists have no special rights about attending events, asking questions and reporting on them. All citizens have these rights. Reporters are citizens, and while they have no more rights than other citizens, they have no fewer.
You have a right to speak.
I have a right to ignore you.
No comments:
Post a Comment