Headlines and Horsewhips

   The days when an angry reader would horsewhip an editor for publishing a story the reader didn't like are gone. But that hasn't stopped some folks from inciting violence against journalists who report things they don't like, or when they present facts counter to their preconceived notions of The Real Truth.
   For many years, reporters kept their opinions to themselves, following the principle that their opinions were not relevant to what they do. Moreover, many news organizations had a policy reinforcing that general rule, partly because an individual journalist's opinions, if expressed in a public forum, could be construed as reflecting the opinion of management.
   However, that never stopped reporters from having opinions, or of expressing them privately.
   Technology has changed many things, including the ability of private individuals to have a worldwide public forum to express their opinions.
   So it is that a sports news anchor for ESPN  wrote on social media her opinion that the current president of the United States is "a white supremacist."
   This might have faded fairly soon, but when the White House called it a 
"fireable offense," suggesting that the ESPN host, Jemele Hill, should lose her job for criticizing the president, even though it was on her own time and on her own media platform, the furor quickly spread.
   This put management in a tough position. If she be fired, it would appear that the company was buckling under to the president.
   (First Amendment be damned, you can't criticize the president.)
   But we can, and we should. In fact, if democracy is to be preserved, we must.
   In addition, a Connecticut state law offers additional protection, thus making it illegal for a firm to punish an employee in such a situation. ESPN is based in Connecticut.
   So much for the other argument that ESPN should discipline the sportscaster for "inappropriate" comments that did not reflect the views of the company.
   But the comments were made on her own time and on her own social media page. And besides, since when did it become illegal or a "fireable offense" to criticize a president, or anyone else, for that matter?
   There are, of course, libel laws that prohibit speech or writing stuff that is false and that damages a person's reputation. But comments about public figures can go to far different extremes.
   Besides, what if the comment is true? If so, it's not libel.
   It's entirely possible that the current president is, in fact, a white supremacist. Moreover, this particular president has said far worse things about others that are not only false, but provably false and often said with malice. All three conditions meet the legal standard for libel.
   Comments about public figures, however, are measured by a different standard. That's what enables one political figure to call his opponents crooked, or born in another country and therefore not eligible to run for office, or many other insulting and demeaning things.
   Now the shoe is on the other foot, as the saying goes.
   ESPN could say to an employee, "Don't bring it in the building," and would be well within its legal right to do so.  But the sports channel has reportedly been encouraging its staffers to indulge in controversy while on their air, including non-sports issues.
   The flap over Jemele Hill's online postings about the president likely would have blown over, but when the White House and the president himself entered the fray and urged ESPN to fire Hill, that raised the stakes to a constitutional level.
   No president is above criticism, and no president can expect a news outlet to follow his instructions and disallow criticism.
   That way madness lies.