I. Legal Controls and Freedom:
In this section on Legal Controls and Freedom, you will learn to
- Describe the importance of the First Amendment to maintaining our democratic way of life
- Summarize the Nine Principles of Journalism
- Differentiate between the four models of press freedom
Our press would neither be free nor independent without the First Amendment. As you will read in your textbook, the First Amendment grants us five freedoms - speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Ultimately, these freedoms protect our ability to express ourselves. The First Amendment supports our right to know.
Who needs the protection of the First Amendment? More than anyone else, the First Amendment protects the voices of those in the minority. It keeps a check on those in power by giving those individuals with a minority opinion the right to speak out against authority.
Moving on, your understanding of the First Amendment and its link to democracy is one of the goals of this course. Ask yourself, "What does 'democracy' mean?" If you had to explain a democratic government to someone living under an oppressive regime, what would you say to that person? Perhaps you might say that a democratic government is one that is run by the people, for the people. In a democracy, the power rests with the electorate - people like you and me. It doesn't rest with a dictator. We vote our elected officials into office and they are accountable to us. True? Would you agree with this explanation?
How do we know who to vote for? We need information - and lots of it - in order to make educated decisions about who to vote for, where to send our kids to school, what products to buy, etc. The free flow of information, delivered to us by the media under the freedoms granted by the First Amendment, is vital to democracy. If we have this information and we're "in the know," then we have power. (Think of the adage: "Knowledge is power.") The power to make our own decisions. To think for ourselves. To act based upon accurate information. So, what's most important for you to understand is that the First Amendment grants us the right to know, and the right to know gives us power, and when the power rests with the people, that's a democracy.
Historically speaking, the debate over the public's right to know versus national security is not a new one. Consider the Pentagon Paper's case, which is introduced to you in your textbooks on page 546. The facts of the case are outlined there. "In 1971...Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department employee, stole a copy of a forty-seven-volume document" on the United States' decision making policy in Vietnam and leaked it to the New York Times and Washington Post. The newspapers began to publish this document - known as the Pentagon Papers - until the Nixon Administration got a restraining order against them saying that releasing the information would compromise our national security based upon the on-going war in Vietnam.
Ellsberg's actions make him sound like a criminal, do they not? Yet the more you read about the case, the more you come to know about Ellsberg. For instance, when he worked for the RAND Corporation he authored policy documents about our operations in Vietnam - some of which were contained in the Pentagon Papers. He was unaware at the time that his work ultimately became part of this secret accounting of the war. Once he found out about the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg believed that Americans were being lied to about the war in Vietnam and he wanted to the public to know the truth. Thus, he "stole" the documents, copied them (leaving out all info that could compromise our troops on the ground in Vietnam) and gave them to the newspapers to publish. The Nixon Administration immediately tried to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers by invoking national security concerns. Ellsberg's lawyers argued the Pentagon Papers contained an over-classification of information that wasn't sensitive, but rather embarrassing to those in power, and that's why the administration was attempting to impede their publication. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court sided with Ellsberg saying the the First Amendment supports the right of the press to publish news without restraint. (You can read more about the Supreme Court's briefs and opinions by clicking here.) The Pentagon Papers Case is considered one of the most important First Amendment cases in history.
Our free expression does not come free of responsibility, however. Recall that I stated earlier that senders need to act responsibly when delivering messages to receivers. Well, our media - the senders - need to abide by this principle. In fact, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, there are nine principles that the media are obligated to follow. (You may click here to read over these Nine Principles of Journalism.) Following the nine principles ensures that the media serves the best interest of the public. Often, the media is scolded for being self-promoting and manipulative. Perhaps it surprises you that our nation's media have these principles that they are urged to abide by - and many do. Many journalists consider their job to be a service to the public, and they attempt to act responsibly when doing their job.
Our Social Responsibility Model of press freedom is unique in the world. As you will read in your textbook, "about 73 percent of the world's people [live] in countries with a less than free press" (Campbell, Martin & Fabos, 2006, p. 544). Seventy-three percent! In an Authoritarian Model, the ruler of the country censors the press. No criticism of the government is permitted. Reporters risk imprisonment if they speak out. The people in these countries remain ignorant and uneducated about their government's practices. In a Communist Model, the media is solely controlled by the government. Leaders of the people and the military decide what is appropriate editorial content to share with the public. Any journalistic attacks on the government are met with censorship or potentially imprisonment. China is one of the countries that operates under this model of press freedom. (In your homework for this module, you will learn about China's push to censor its media outlets.)
The Libertarian Model espouses criticism of the government. In this model, a robust critique of issues and the behavior of government officials is encouraged. No restrictions exist on the press; therefore, the media can deliver all messages - truthful or not. It is left up to the people to decide truth from falsehood. In the United States, our model of press freedom borrows from the libertarian philosophy, but only to an extent. Our Social Responsibility Model welcomes free expression, but mandates that the press acts responsibly (e.g., the Nine Principles). Holding government officials accountable for their actions is expected in our model. In fact, this has a name: Watch Dog. When the press reports on the activities of our elected officials and public figures, we say they are acting as a "watch dog" to be certain these individuals serve our best interests. A watch dog press follows the Nine Principles of Journalism when reporting on our nation's government as well as on our public and private institutions.
~by Prof. Dawn Francis