Journalism Jeopardy

A nation that suppresses disagreement is not truly free.

   The core of a democratic society is the freedom to disagree, publicly and without fear of retaliation, especially by government.
   Yet, in the name of protecting a society, some act to suppress disagreement, not only by those perceived as The Other, but journalists who report on the disagreements.
   The Constitution of the United States guarantees not only freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, but also "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
   Emphasize "peaceably." This term is often forgotten by many who disagree, and feel their right to protest includes the right to throw stones. They are so convinced of their own righteousness that they feel free to suppress those who disagree. And this is a problem both among protesters and those they protest against.
   Control of information is the first tool of a dictatorship. And the first step to acquiring that tool is to suppress disagreement. A free society, then, must allow peaceful disagreement, if that society is to remain free.
  In America today, disagreement and protest have become increasingly violent. In politics, candidates urge their followers to "rough up" protesters. And from protesters alleging police misconduct comes the demand "We want justice now!" Too often, however, protesters equate justice with revenge. They are less interested in a court verdict of guilt or innocence than in punishment of the accused.
   Journalism, meanwhile, is caught in the middle, as each side demands favorable reports on their tactics and behavior while opponents are portrayed as demons.
   This information conflict is fanned by media outlets, most blatantly by television and radio commentators who are themselves biased, slanting their coverage to match the prejudices of their audiences.
   There are exceptions, of course. Many news presenters give neutral, balanced reports of events, and when protesters, candidates or police are clearly wrong, good journalists say so, even at the risk of political retaliation.
   One of the most flagrant examples of political attempts to influence news coverage was when Morley Safer reported the story of U.S. Marines torching a village in Viet Nam, destroying the homes of civilians long after any enemy soldiers had left. This prompted President Lyndon Johnson to call the chief of CBS News and demand that Safer be fired.
   It didn't happen. The report was true, and the network refused the President's demand.
   Just as journalists -- both print and broadcast -- must preserve and protect the right of the people to know true and accurate information, their employers must stand behind them and resist attempts to control the flow of information.
   And this includes attempts by unelected demagogues as well as by self-appointed government censors.