Free press will serve citizens if they insist
We learned this week that the U.S. military was paying Iraqi media to run stories showing its forces and their accomplishments in a favorable light. The White House wasn’t pleased, and spokesman Scott McClellan said they were looking into these claims.
What, you’re entitled to ask, does that have to do with an ombudsman column in Spokane, Wash., and the journalism of The Spokesman-Review? At first glance, nothing in particular. But at a deeper level, more or less everything.
As the media in Iraq try to establish themselves in a post-Saddam environment, they will learn that a reputation for autonomy and credibility is crucial. Without the perception by their readers and viewers that these news organizations are able to operate independently and openly, they will simply not be believable – either inside the country or beyond.
If the U.S. military has indeed been buying coverage in these Iraqi news organizations, they have done these fledgling media an enormous disservice. After all, what trust would you place in The Spokesman-Review or any other news outlet if you knew its news columns were, in part, written by military specialists in psychological warfare?
Which brings us to the two points of this column. The first is that journalism anywhere takes place in the context of a host society. In what kind of climate does the press operate? Clearly, Iraqis and their journalists presently face an extraordinary situation. In the United States, though, journalists operate in an environment that affords them remarkable freedom, unparalleled elsewhere in the world. Thanks to the First Amendment, the Constitution provides journalists the opportunity to practice their craft with exceptional freedom from government interference. Note, however, that the courts don’t limit that First Amendment protection to journalists; it is a protection for each of us to have his say.
The second, and related, point is that the Constitution only provides the opportunity for journalists to do good work, not the guarantee that they will. French writer Albert Camus said, “A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad.” Nowhere does the First Amendment require newspapers to be accurate, tasteful, free of bias or spelling errors, or anything else that may trouble readers. Newspapers can print whatever they like, subject only to relatively few legal constraints like the law of libel and national security concerns. If their editors and owners so choose, the papers can get away with being truly dreadful. The First Amendment, quite simply, does not guarantee good journalism.
When we find ourselves unhappy with the media, we have only two basic options. One is to insist that the government somehow force the press to act responsibly, however those in authority might define that. Fortunately, the wisdom underlying the First Amendment has for more than two centuries foreseen that government control of the press would be a disaster for democracy. Whether it’s from the left, the middle or the right of the political spectrum, government intervention in a free press would take whatever ills marked the press to a new level, not remedy them.
If you don’t trust politicians to legislate better journalism, then who else is there to push for it? The answer is “you.” If there’s one theme I’ve tried to emphasize in these columns, it is that readers should keep insisting on good journalism – from The Spokesman-Review and from all the media on which they rely. When you encounter journalism in the paper that angers or disappoints you, do something about it. If your concern is a story that was incorrectly reported, call the paper and tell someone. If you disagree with some other aspect of the paper’s coverage, write a letter to the editor or the “Ask the Editors” column.
I’m convinced, having read the paper with heightened attentiveness over the past 20 months, that most of the time The Spokesman-Review serves this community well. But not always. Some readers have brought examples of what they and I agreed fell short of the journalism the paper aspires to; this column addressed several of them. The Spokesman-Review’s editors and reporters know that their paper, like any other, is a flawed institution. Lest they be tempted to forget that, we readers need to keep holding them accountable for giving us good journalism, without which all of us are the poorer and less able to sustain an open, democratic society.
Back to the news from Iraq. The Spokesman-Review, like the U.S. press generally, operates in a climate of freedom in which journalists have the opportunity to practice journalism as best they know; nobody says they’ll always succeed. André Gide’s comment seems especially relevant here: “To know how to free oneself is nothing; the arduous thing is to know what to do with one’s freedom.” I invite you to help The Spokesman-Review to keep working on that second step.
A personal note: Since April 2004 I’ve had the remarkable opportunity to fill this space on a subject I care about passionately: good journalism. Now, because of a change in my commitments, I need to stop serving in that role. In my initial column, I said the paper’s editors promised me free rein to say what I liked. They honored that commitment. Lastly, I want to thank those readers who cared enough about good journalism to take the time to bring issues or concerns to my attention.