Publishers and book stores are right in complaining about competition from Amazon and its book sales division. There are indeed many examples of literary works pirated and republished via Amazon, bypassing the obligation to pay royalties to authors and fees to the original publisher.
But the latest report on the problem, printed in the New York Times, deals only with one aspect of the issue -- that of traditional publishers and book store owners. There is no mention of the predicament faced by writers.
Publishers and book stores want to deal with authors with a proven record of success in writing books that sell well. New writers, even those with a long history of success in journalism, are rejected because they have no record of success in book sales.
But how can they sell books if no one will publish them?
There, then, is the business opportunity that Amazon recognized and exploited through its Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) division, and the company is well ahead of traditional publishers.
Publishers and retailers now want to prevent Amazon from continuing to publish and sell books. But they are likely to have the same amount of success other retailers have had in fighting the competition from Amazon.
None.
Meanwhile, authors -- even beginners -- can set up and publish their work via KDP at no cost and can start collecting royalties within two or three months, compared to nearly two years with a traditional publisher. Assuming the author's work is accepted and published at all.
The downside, of course, is that promotion, advertising and marketing must be done by authors themselves rather by a corporate publishing division.
But the upside is that a book becomes available worldwide immediately, and if an author is able to do marketing and promotion, so much the better. Even more so if knowledge of the book goes viral on the Internet.
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Some demand allegiance from everyone, on the principle that whoever is not with them is against them and therefore is an enemy.
But this ignores the idea of neutrality and independence. A political leader does just that when he attacks journalism as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people."
An independent news outlet is neither friend nor enemy, but is neutral, reporting accurately what a politician says and does, as well as whether it conforms to fact or reality. Crying "that's not fair" is a child's way of objecting to disagreement.
Much as he might want to, a politician or government leader cannot and must not be able to control the press. Many try, however, on the idea that there is no in-between. People generally, and news media especially, are either supporters or they are the enemy. For them neutrality and independence don't exist.
There are, of course, news outlets that are not neutral even as they are independent. Also, there are some that masquerade as neutral, independent news outlets but are really public relations (read: propaganda) operations affiliated with a political party or official.
They too are protected by the Constitution, and it is the people's responsibility to know this and to recognize which is which.
Meanwhile, politicians manipulate this lack of responsibility to spread their own message of an "enemy" press that spreads "fake news," even as news outlets report accurately what the politician says and does, along with comments from opponents.
This means that it's up to the public to decide who's lying. And an easy way to decide that is to look to history and reputation.
If a politician has a long and proven history of being an arrogant, ignorant, vindictive, foul-mouthed liar, a cheat and a fraud, it's up to news outlets to point out examples of that behavior. And if readers choose to ignore that and accept the politician's version of "alternative facts," on the premise that "truth isn't truth," that too is their right.
But neither the politician nor the public has a right to suppress any and all reports of information that disagrees with them. That's called dictatorship.
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Unemployment is down, payroll jobs are up, the economy is steady and wages, salaries and personal income are holding.
That's the good news from the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis as Americans get ready for their homecoming holiday this year.
The not so good news, of course, is that the impeachment process against the current president continues to gather evidence supporting the idea of booting him from the White House. But that depends on whether you support him or you want him out, and current polls suggest an increasing number of Americans want him out.
Meanwhile, families and friends are gathering to give thanks for what they have and to express hope that things will get better.
Economically, things look good. Jobless rates were lower in October than a year ago in 240 of the 389 metro areas in America, according to government statistics, and nonfarm payroll employment was up in 49 metro ares and unchanged in 340.
Personal income was "virtually unchanged" in October after rising 0.3 percent in September, while wages and salaries, the largest component of the data, rose 0.4 percent.
Overall, Gross Domestic Product, or total output of goods and services, increased 2.1 percent in the third quarter, according to the second estimate by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, compared to 2 percent in the second quarter.
"Presidents are not kings," wrote the federal judge, and "absolute immunity does not exist."
And with that ruling, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington made it official what many have been saying for months. Specifically, the ruling applies to members of the president's staff, who claimed immunity from congressional investigation because they are or were members of the president's staff.
Lawyers for the president have claimed that not only is the president immune from prosecution but so also are members of his staff, whether still on the job or after they leave. But this raises the question of where that immunity might end, if ever. The ruling, by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, calls this "a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of repetition" by administration lawyers.
The ruling is likely to be appealed, and the issue of presidential immunity eventually will make its way to the Supreme Court. This could take months, but whether the case is settled before Election Day next November is a wide open question.
Meanwhile, members of the public face the continuing argument between the White House and Congress over who's in charge.
Attorney General William Barr has said the Constitution supports presidential authority over other government branches. Others, including Judge Jackson, stress the concept of three co-equal branches of government. In her ruling, Judge Jackson wrote that the Constitution "vests the legislature with the power to investigate abuses of official authority when necessary to hold government officials, up to and including the president, accountable."
Or as many observers have pointed out, no one is above the law. And that includes the president.
That's a stupid question. -- Donald Trump to a reporter
For a journalist, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers. -- Pug Mahoney
Guidelines from the Pug Mahoney school of journalism:
1. We ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
2. My opinion is not relevant to what I do.
3. The press is not the enemy.
4. Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Politicians may not like the questions, and any attempt to quash them by attacking reporters and media as "fake news" can only lead to more aggressive questioning and reporting.
Reporters will keep their cool and continue to ask questions. It's what they do, and they do it on behalf of the public, thereby providing information to voters.
Nevertheless, continuing to mock, insult and vilify reporters because they do not bow to a politician's every wish and command is itself a mockery of the tradition of a free and independent press, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Reporters have thick hides, and it's very difficult if not impossible to control what they do, what questions they ask and in what form the questions are asked. Contrary to what a politician or government official might believe or want, journalists do not work for them. They are paid by their media employers, but in a larger sense they work for the public.
Any attempt to control the information provided to the public is therefore by definition propaganda -- or, to be kind, it is public relations and advertising.
In short, the press is not the enemy. Adversaries, yes, and an adversarial press is one of the foundations of a free society. But treating reporters as somehow less than human and deserving of whatever insult you can throw at them will usually be ignored. In a larger sense, however, journalists are human (notwithstanding what a politician may believe).
A smart politician, therefore, will remember that repeatedly insulting and mocking reporters and what they do eventually will have negative consequences.
Or, as noted in this space a year ago, there are no stupid questions, but only stupid answers.
Now is the time for all good senators to come to the aid of their conscience.
The question before them is whether the current president is guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," as outlined in the Constitution, and if so should he be removed from office.
The first two sins are easily defined, and evidence has been gathered to support allegations. The others are not specifically defined, so it is up to Congress and its investigators to set up a definition and gather evidence.
Likewise, it is up to supporters to refute any evidence related to the charges. The case has not yet been presented to the Senate. First, it must be formally presented to the full House of Representatives in the form of impeachment allegations gathered by the House Intelligence Committee and approved by the Judiciary Committee.
Even so, it is time for senators to prepare for the likelihood of an impeachment trial. But they must also consider the amount of support for them by voters back home. Realistically, they must balance the need to follow the wishes of the electorate with the need to follow Constitutional and legal principles, as well as their conscience.
For many, that may be a tough balancing act. Already, some members of Congress have decided to leave office rather than follow the demands of ardent supporters of the president and ignore their conscience.
That, however, according to the resident cynic Pug Mahoney, is a copout. They should follow their conscience and the Constitution, and not cower to the whims of a fickle electorate.
That way danger lies.
Big news stories mean that TV networks don't pause their coverage for commercial breaks, either while vital Congressional hearings are under way or when the president is giving an important speech.
Sometimes, however, the president puts in a call to his favorite news operation and talks for nearly an hour and there are no commercial interruptions there, either.
Granted, the Fox network executives may consider it a public service to carry the president's message even as he avoids calling the other major networks, or they may wallow in the delight that he calls them and not the others, especially since he gets more sympathetic interviews.
Other news operations, moreover, don't carry presidential ramblings for the hour or more that he takes up with his chats on Fox. In a way, the others don't have the problem of deciding when or whether to interrupt the chat for a commercial break.
In any case, suspending all regular programming in favor of live, uninterrupted coverage of important news events is part of what they do, and TV operations -- both local and network -- lose a lot of advertising revenue when they do.
Moreover, it is their journalistic duty to do it, without fear of government retribution if the news is harmful to any administration's reputation. It is also a news outlet's choice to stress elements of the news that are favorable to a particular party.
That's one choice. Another is to be neutral, and many media outlets manage to do both, with news coverage that is neutral and commentary that is not.
Viewers and readers, then, are also free to choose which news and commentary outlet to read or watch.
That's part of the notion of a free press and of free speech. This is a right we are all born with, and is guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.
Congress "should never, ever impeach," said President Donald Trump on Friday. Two days earlier, he said impeachment "shouldn't be allowed."
Left unanswered is the question, by whom?
Where does it say that this president is above the law, and is not subject to investigation over potential violations of Constitutional bans on "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?
It is the duty of Congress, a co-equal branch of the U.S. government, to inquire into such allegations and, if sufficient evidence turns up, to take the action specified in the Constitution: Impeachment by the House of Representatives, trial by the Senate and removal from office if convicted.
Perhaps it's too much to expect this current president to actually read the Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect and defend."
The news that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted on charges of fraud and bribery in alleged attempts to buy favorable media coverage reminded us of the close family triumvirate of Netanyahu, Trump and Kushner.
Netanyahu has a close relationship with the Kushner family, and on visits to America often stayed at the Kushner home in New Jersey. In his younger years, young Jared Kushner had to give up his room to the family guest.
Eventually, Jared married Ivanka Trump, the daughter of the current president.
Separately, Jared's father Charles was jailed by Chris Christie, a federal prosecutor at the time, who later became governor of New Jersey and then an associate of Donald Trump. The elder Kushner was charged with illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering.
However, a decade later, when Christie was being considered for a high post in the Trump administration, young Jared likely objected to the president and the nomination was withdrawn.
Sound complicated, like a plot in a second-rate soap opera?
Hey, it's New Jersey, why the surprise?
Meanwhile, there is the question whether Netanyahu can be removed as prime minister of Israel because of the indictment for alleged misdeeds.
That, too, sounds familiar.
"Dad, do not worry. You did the right thing. I will be fine for telling the truth." -- Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to his father via live TV impeachment hearing.
For all the ranting about immigrants and the supposed danger they bring to America, it's useful to compare the comments and the groups they refer to.
A quick -- and very easy -- glance at some representative examples brings the conclusion that the ranting is bigoted and racist.
For example, to call for a ban on all Muslims entering the country ignores the reality that Muslims have been part of American society and culture for several hundred years.
Some were brought from Africa as slaves. Others came willingly as they sought refuge from harsh regimes elsewhere in the world. Still others are native Americans who converted to Islam, or are the children of immigrants who brought their faith with them.
Moreover, all are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
To call for a ban on all Muslims is therefore a clear violation of a right people are born with and is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Secondly, building a wall to keep out those of a certain ethnicity while encouraging immigration from other regions of the world is racist.
Finally, continuing to demand such restrictions even as your own family benefits from the American goal of religious and ethnic freedom is hypocrisy. And while hypocrisy may not be illegal, racism and bigotry are, and at the Constitutional level.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- First Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -- Thirteenth Amendment.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." -- Fifteenth Amendment.
These thoughts came to mind as witnesses at House impeachment hearings spoke of their own success in America, whether as immigrants themselves or as children of newcomers.
Example: Gordon Sondland, now ambassador to the European Union, is the son of refugees from the Holocaust and a successful businessman.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was brought to America at the age of three by his father, who sought to free his family from the Soviet domination of Ukraine.
In closing remarks to the House committee gathering evidence to support impeachment of the president, Col. Vindman publicly thanked his father for bringing him to America.
"Dad, do not worry. You did the right thing. I will be fine for telling the truth."
Is there a question in there someplace? -- Pug Mahoney
Holding forth on national television knowing that the gavel man is not likely to demand an end to the tirade is a widespread pastime among politicians. It was especially noticeable this week at the impeachment hearings in Washington.
Then again, "hearings" is a misnomer. The congressional investigators can't hear anything if they use their time slot talking rather than asking questions.
In any case, information does indeed come out of the sessions despite the efforts of some to drown it with a torrent of verbiage which, as Shakespeare put it, is often "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Currently, defenders of the GOP faith are verbally pounding the table and attacking the impeachment process. Any attempt to refute the facts fails against the fusillade of information from a squadron of reliable witnesses whose reputations cannot easily be assailed.
Granted, it is the function of partisan politicians to fight any move by members of an opposing party to gain any advantage. But there comes a time when truth, justice and the American way are on the line, and that's when there should be unity in the search for solid information.
Otherwise, the competition is about as reliable as a professional wrestling match. The difference is that an impeachment hearing is not meant to be entertaining.
A musical comedy it ain't.
The president apparently failed in an attempt to persuade Fed Chair Jerome Powell to change its monetary policy. The president has often demanded that the nation's central bank ease its monetary restrictions so the economy can grow faster, but the Fed has just as consistently refused to listen to the president's demands.
At the White House Monday, called by the president, Powell met with the president and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to "to discuss the economy, growth, employment and inflation," according to a Fed statement.
But the statement added that Powell "did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy, except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming information."
Moreover, Powell pointed out that the Fed will make its decisions "solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis."
No word yet on what the president and his Treasury chief asked of the Fed chair.
Time was, reporters and editors would routinely clean up grammar and delete cuss words when quoting government officials or anyone else. This was partly out of respect for political office and partly to improve communication.
But when a government official repeatedly mocks, criticizes and otherwise attacks the news media and working reporters as "the enemy of the people," deliberately antagonizing those whose job it is to keep the public informed of both good and bad news, rather than blindly supporting said government official in spreading propaganda, there comes a time when reporters and editors stop cleaning up the grammar and deleting the cuss words.
Besides, they can't do it when the politician regularly and repeatedly spouts foul language on live national television broadcasts even as he bad-mouths the media.
So if he doesn't care about using cuss words in public, why should we? say the reporters. Journalism's job is to describe and report what politicians do and say, even and especially when what the politician says is false and provably false.
That's called lying.
And it's even more important to the survival of a free society that a lying leader be exposed as just that -- a lying, foul-mouthed, incompetent fraud.
Reporters around the world have paid the ultimate price for exposing a high official's misdeeds and lies.
We now see examples of threats made against those who criticize the current president. These threats are made via social media -- usually Twitter and often by the president himself -- unedited and unfiltered by anyone, just as he has publicly urged that protestors at political rallies be beaten up, promising that he would pay the bail for those who beat up the protestors.
The pen remains mightier than the sword, but it's hard to wield a pencil when your fingers are broken.
Fortunately, we haven't come to that stage in America.
Yet.
The big story this week for the U.S. news media has been the accelerating move to impeach the current president.
But that intense focus on the nation's capital means events in other parts of the nation and the world are relegated to smaller time slots in news programs, if they are carried at all.
Forest fires in California get some coverage, but fires in Australia -- some bigger and more dangerous than those in California -- are ignored.
Likewise, the political hassle over the prime minister of the United Kingdom is briefly mentioned, but political events in neighboring Canada are not considered disturbing enough to be mentioned on American networks.
As for political events in other nations where English remains an important language, such as India, Pakistan and several nations in Africa, there is little or no coverage at all.
Moreover, events in the rest of the world are ignored completely by network TV news programs. Major print media such as newspapers and magazines do cover newsworthy events in other countries, but they too are selective in their choice of stories.
That's what editors do.
Similarly, newspapers and TV stations in U.S. cities cover local events -- politics, police reports, fires and feature stories -- that are not dramatic enough to make it to Page One or to national news media.
All news is local.
That's an easy concept to grasp when dealing with weekly newspapers or even daily newspapers and broadcasters in cities. But this is also true on a national level, as TV networks and large-circulation publications focus on events in their own countries and less so on what's happening in the rest of the world.
All news is local.
All the major TV networks suspended their daytime programming to cover impeachment hearings by a House committee. Radio and key web sites also carried the hearings live as the process dominates the news cycle.
There is little dispute over many of the facts disclosed in the inquiry. Instead, presidential defenders attack the process, with the attitude that this kind of behavior "happens all the time. Get over it," and even if it is irresponsible or even potentially illegal, it's not impeachable. Or as White House spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway put it, the process "is not following the rule of law."
True, but impeachment is not a civil or a criminal law process. Other defenders deride the process as "purely political." But this too is true. It is indeed a political process, even as it uses civil and criminal violations as evidence of inappropriate political behavior.
Moreover, the Constitution is quite specific on examples of impeachable behavior -- treason and bribery. It also lists "other high crimes and misdemeanors" as grounds for impeachment, but does not define these.
The Constitution also specifies that an official may still be liable for civil or criminal prosecution after being removed from office through impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate. That's why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Moreover, that constitutional provision applies only to federal offenses, not to state or local laws.
As to whether "hush money" payments constitute bribery or whether withholding financial and military aid to a foreign government to force a "favor" constitutes extortion or a high crime or misdemeanor, that's for constitutional lawyers on the impeachment committee to decide.
Ordinary citizens, however -- if indeed there be such -- know wrongful behavior when they see it, and they know that bribery and extortion are, in ordinary language, wrong.
To say that such behavior is OK because "everybody does it" may be an acceptable excuse for a young teenager, but to adults on a congressional investigating committee it is a childish copout.
Another interesting tactic is the White House attempt to claim immunity not only for the president but by extension to every member of his staff. Whether this claim survives a congressional or a court challenge also bears watching.
"I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes." -- Donald Trump
He has "absolute presidential immunity." -- Trump attorney William Consovoy
The United States Supreme Court now is being asked to decide the issue of whether a president is immune from prosecution or investigation, either from a state seeking financial records or from a Congressional committee subpoena for similar tax records.
Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the cases is now the question, and that may not happen for months, until the general election campaign is in high gear.
Even so, the news accelerates the pace of the impeachment procedure as House committees continue to hear witnesses providing information on the president's actions and comments.
The New York probe deals with allegations of payments made to women to have them stay quiet about sexual affairs with the president. It is a civil issue at the state level, and the debate is whether federal laws and presidential "immunity" apply.
The state case demanded financial records from Trump's accounting firm, and not directly from the president. Nonetheless, the president's attorney argued that "presidential immunity" still applies. A federal court of appeals has already rejected that claim.
The House committee subpoenaed financial records for eight years before he was elected, and is investigating possible illegal conduct before or during Trump's time in office.
So the broader question is whether a president while in office is immune from prosecution of any kind. Or as opposing politicians have repeatedly put it, "No one is above the law."
The president said today that the congressional inquiry into potential impeachment "shouldn't be allowed."
Question: By whom?
The open impeachment hearings are under way, and Republicans called it the result of a "orchestrated smear campaign being perpetuated by the Trump-hating media."
That's the phrase on a GOP email posting, an echo of opening remarks by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California), who called it part of a "carefully orchestrated media smear campaign."
As if American news media are cooperating with each other as well as with Democrats in creating and presenting negative stories about the current president. Except Fox News, of course, which as everyone knows is the only neutral presenter of straight news stories without a slant toward either liberal or conservative viewpoints.
As if every editor of every newspaper in the nation and the world, including the wire services and all the television news operations get together every day to coordinate their coverage of every news story they use.
Get real.
To begin with, they don't have time to do that. Secondly, they are competitive, always trying to be first with a breaking news story if they can't be exclusive.
Finally, and perhaps most important, calling it a "carefully orchestrated smear campaign" raises the question of who's leading the orchestration. The implication being that the Democratic Party is conducting the campaign.
Really? What happened to the First Amendment guarantee of a free and independent press, immune from interference by any person or group?
Constantly complaining of biased news reporting when any information negative to your cause is published only leads to sharper questions from reporters when the information is accurate and provably true.
Nobody likes being insulted, and reporters generally ignore such criticism. But when it happens every day for months and journalists know their reports are accurate, the result is more detailed reporting of what the insulter says and does.
News media have finally gotten around to translating the Latin phrase "quid pro quo" into English. It means "this for that." And it's no accident that "quid" in British slang means "money," so the term "quid pro quo" easily translates into American usage as "money for that."
In turn, this becomes the legal term "bribery," and since the Constitution establishes bribery as grounds for impeachment, it's time to stop the word games and get to the task at hand.
Lawyers can argue the difference between bribery and extortion, but to resident word maven Pug Mahoney, the difference is one of direction: Bribery is giving or offering money, and extortion is demanding money.
Either way, there's an offer of something of value in exchange for something else of value.
White House defense folk claim that since the threat of withholding military aid to Ukraine did not actually happen and the aid was later delivered, there wasn't really any quid pro quo.
But attempted bribery is also a crime.
Quid pro quo.
This for that.
Whether it worked or not, you actually tried.
You're fired.
We are watching portents meet pretense. -- Pug Mahoney
Observers spent the past few days speculating on what the Election Day results portend for the future of the nation. But with only a few statewide contests at the governor level, that's a very small sample to deal with. Nevertheless, a small sample is better than none, and sometimes a small sample can be quite accurate in forecasting or identifying a trend, just as a small bite can identify a good flavor. Or a bad taste.
In this week's sample, the election of a Democrat as governor of Kentucky and a Democratic takeover of the Virginia legislature may well signify the beginning of a major trend away from Republicanism and toward bigger Democratic Party victories next year, when all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the senators, as well as the president, will be on the ballot.
Assuming the sample be an accurate prediction, the GOP has cause to worry, especially when added to the accelerating move to impeach the president.
Whether that move succeeds, however, remains an open question, but the evidence is piling up as House committees proceed with their inquiry/probe/investigation/research/questioning (pick one, thus avoiding a semantic debate over which word is appropriate).
Meanwhile, GOP senators are becoming less defensive of the president, as some compare their role to that of a jury, which decides whether to convict or clear an accused person. Other senators hedge their remarks as they watch the growing amount of evidence of wrongdoing.
The GOP is testing the waters with an online poll asking people if they think Barack Obama was a better president, and "if given the choice, would American's (sic) want Obama back" for a third term?
The poll itself lists only two yes-or-no questions: "Yes - Barack Obama is a great president" or "No - He was a terrible president and I am happy he is no longer in office."
Left unsaid in the poll is the Constitutional reality that presidents are limited to two terms. So unless the Constitution is suspended, a third term is not possible.
But perhaps that's the plan, to suspend the Constitution and enable Donald Trump to remain as president for more than the eight-year limit.
For many months, he has been "joking" about his ten or twelve years in office, claiming that he does that only to drive journalists bonkers.
But the new, Republican-sponsored survey, while meaningless on its face, lays the groundwork for a bigger plan to keep Trump in office longer than the Constitutional limit.
Ironically, Republicans were largely responsible for the Constitutional amendment limiting presidential terms after Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected for a fourth time in 1944. Amendment XXII was passed by Congress March 21, 1947 and ratified February 27, 1951.
The Constitution now says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice," plus a maximum of two years of an unexpired term if succeeding someone who dies in office or resigns.
So unless that amendment is eliminated or the Constitution is suspended, Trump cannot serve more than two terms, or a total of eight years. Even if he is re-elected in November of next year, he must leave office on January 20, 2025.
Assuming he survives the current impeachment kerfuffle, remains in office and is re-elected.
Unless he somehow manages to suspend the Constitution.
So said the U.S. Department of State in its support for the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists. That's a long way of calling for an end to "all threats, intimidation, and violence against journalists and other media professionals for their work," according to a public statement from the State Department.
The statement cited the jailing, torturing, killing and harassing of reporters around the world who expose "the abuses of corrupt regimes, undermine the work of terrorist and criminal organizations ... and counter disinformation."
Finally, the government statement said "the United States will call out those who seek to undermine this essential component of any healthy society."
A worthy goal. Perhaps President Trump should read it and follow the policy of his own Department of State.
