For the First Amendment Freedoms Project, we were placed into groups of four to create a video that answers the question, "What will be the most important First Amendment Freedom in the next 100 years?" Johnny Middleton, Tanner Smith, Rachel Gonzalez, and I joined forces to reconcile the consequences of what would happen if all of our First Amendment Freedoms were taken away.
The second part of the project involved individuals writing essays on their First Amendment Freedoms. You can find my essay below the video.
To aid the process of writing the essay, we created and wrote blog posts throughout learning about the 1st Amendment Freedoms. You can see these blog entries by clicking on the link to the right under Categories called "1st Amendment Blog."
The second part of the project involved individuals writing essays on their First Amendment Freedoms. You can find my essay below the video.
To aid the process of writing the essay, we created and wrote blog posts throughout learning about the 1st Amendment Freedoms. You can see these blog entries by clicking on the link to the right under Categories called "1st Amendment Blog."
America Is In Danger Losing Its Freedom of The Press
By Emily Wieser
As our world becomes more and more convoluted with the rise of globalization, politics, economics, and mass dissemination of the media it’s become exceedingly difficult to discern the truth from the lies. This is why, at this moment in our nation’s history, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Press is more important than ever in helping to decide how to proceed forward as a democracy. Yet through sometimes not-so-subtle corporate and political manipulation, our news is quickly moving away from providing truth to the people and instead providing them with opinions, agendas, controversy, and just plain drama: the people who are giving us the truth are unprotected and in danger by our own government.
As America’s government becomes more and more opaque, it’s up to the press to counterbalance and restore the transparency that was originally expected when this nation was first built. This has become consistently more difficult, as journalists are struggling to break through and provide important information to the public. It’s vital that sources, such as whistleblowers, feel comfortable enough to come forward to journalists and present information that would otherwise risk their identity, privacy, freedom, or even life. Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, and Thomas Drake have all experienced severe prosecution from the government for revealing critical information to the public via the press (Cusack). The message our government is sending is one of deterrence for those who may want to come forward. It says, “If you expose us, you’ll be punished for it.”
Shield Laws are laws that give reporters the protection to not be forced into revealing confidential information or sources in state court (Shield). Yet the real purpose of shield laws is to protect the sources themselves, as well as encourage them to come forward to the press. However these state laws vary, and so does the privilege itself. This creates debates around scenarios such as if they got the information from a source in one state, but published it in another state, which state shield law would apply? The proposed Free Flow of Information Act would supposedly try to cure that by creating a federal shield law. Many large news corporations are all for this bill to be passed. The National Press Photographers Association says, “The bill would provide clear and meaningful protection at the federal level for journalists against improper intrusion into free press” (Todd).
However, smaller news agencies and independent journalists alike aren’t sold. The Senate voted on how to define ‘journalist’. In which they said that a “covered journalist” is an “employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information” (Todd). If the Free Flow of Information Act were to be passed, a Senate-made definition of what a journalist is would be passed along with it. This does little to support freelance journalists who constantly provide a wide-spectrum of coverage on overlooked stories. Freelance journalism would become, in a sense, unprotected and enable the government to prosecute any group that isn’t legislatively recognized as a news agency as well any independents, bloggers, freelancers, and self-declared journalists who don’t fit the definition. Additionally, the bill itself states that a judge must first “weigh the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in ‘gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue and maintaining the free flow of information’” (The Times). This means that depending on whether it’s a civil case, criminal case, or national security case, the protection granted would vary depending on the case type as well as the judicial interpretation of the term “public interest.” Tricia Todd, director/producer of “Killing the Messenger,” and co-director/producer Eric Matthies even go so far as to state in a Huffington Post Editorial that the Free Flow of Information Act “...really intends to shield the politicians from pesky journalists looking to unearth wrong doing” (Todd).
If whistleblowers and freelance journalists alike are unable to do their jobs without fear of harsh government interference, then it’s justified to say that our government has made a direct disacknowledgment of one of our First Amendment Freedoms. In addition to this serious infringement by the government, the media news industry has serious flaws of it’s own.
Information is constantly being broadcasted through our phones, Internet, radio, and news publications from hundreds of sources. Through all of this, it becomes difficult to separate the truth from the half-truth, and even the half-truth from the false. Some television broadcasts say that climate change is a hoax, while online articles fanatically obsess over the urgency of the issue. Which one can you trust? Which claim is true? How do you even define the truth of a matter?
In 2013 a 59% majority reported a perception of media bias within the United States (Media bias). Media bias is defined as “when the media in the United States systematically emphasizes one particular point of view in a way that contravenes the standards of professional journalism” (Media bias). There are multiple different types of media bias including advertising bias, corporate bias, mainstream bias, sensationalism, liberal bias, conservative bias, and concision bias (Media bias). Depending on which type of bias is being broadcasted, people will receive a plethora of skewed perceptions based on what they listen to, watch, and read. An example of this can be found in two news agencies coverage of the 2012 political campaign. Pew Research Center reports that, “In the final stretch of the campaign, nearly half (46%) of Obama’s coverage on Fox [News] was negative, while just 6% was positive in tone. But MSNBC produced an even harsher narrative about the Republican of the race: 71% of Romney’s coverage was negative, versus 3% positive” (Holcomb). Mixed tones of coverage from both sides weren’t included in the report. Subjective news reporting within left-winged and right-winged news agencies clash constantly, creating black and white pictures from both sides that encourages audiences to not acknowledge the truth of the facts or information itself, but instead “take political sides.” This creates fragmented news, where the truth becomes unclear due to a tidal wave of extreme media bias.
Some would argue that the media and the news is a “market place of ideas.” This represents the viewpoint that having freedom of the press is to create competition for ideas in free, transparent public discourse. What the news is currently doing – and what corresponds with the marketplace of ideas – is providing manipulated viewpoints for audiences as well as presenting misleading information or facts that do not coincide with the reality of the issues and events at hand. The purpose of the press should be to present objective, non-bias news that the public can then form their own opinions on. Our news is so incredibly fragmented, it’s become just as gridlocked in politics and money as our very own government.
The diversity of where our news comes from and who owns it also raises concerns. There has been a rapid consolidation of news agencies due to the rising of corporate media conglomerates. There are currently seven of these corporate media conglomerates including Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, 21st Century Fox, and Comcast (Media conglomerate).
Vice, an up-and-coming media outlet, is a timely example of how these conglomerates work. Vice provides what they call “immersive investigative journalism” (Vice) through online video documentaries about current events and issues. Over the recent two years, Vice has expanded significantly; with a recently landed series on HBO as well as a new branch of coverage called Vice News. Corporate media conglomerates have taken notice of the trendy media company. Tom Freston, who runs Viacom corporate media conglomerate, has become both an investor and close advisor of Vice, running on it’s board. Rupert Murdock, the chairman of 21st Century Fox, was recently seen stepping out of his black SUV and into Vice headquarters in Brooklyn. Both Disney and Time Warner have been discussing deals as well (Mahler). It isn’t coincidental that four of the seven corporate media conglomerates have shown up at Vice’s doorstep. To refuse the offer of a corporate media conglomerate and stay an independent organization would allow for companies like Vice to have freedom over their own content, but they would be competing against multi-billion dollar corporations for audiences. More money means the ability to reach out further to viewers. If they join, they’re safe from the worry of competition, but would have a significantly less amount of wiggle room to explore and report their own content. Vice has not brokered a deal yet, but when presented with the choice of either competing with or joining a corporation, it seems that with whichever decision is made they’re still going to get the short end of the stick.
When putting all of the elements together, (governmental interference in the press, threatening sources, creating bills that limit journalists, political influence in how news is broadcasted, media bias, and a lacking diversity in news organizations), it’s important to question whether we actually have freedom of the press. Our democracy will not thrive without it. Citizens need accurate news –facts and information that gives justice to the reality of our world– to decide and act upon. If what we’re being fed is anything but the truth, and if the government disallows it, we are not free. As Thomas Jefferson once said: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Click Here For Bibliography
As our world becomes more and more convoluted with the rise of globalization, politics, economics, and mass dissemination of the media it’s become exceedingly difficult to discern the truth from the lies. This is why, at this moment in our nation’s history, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Press is more important than ever in helping to decide how to proceed forward as a democracy. Yet through sometimes not-so-subtle corporate and political manipulation, our news is quickly moving away from providing truth to the people and instead providing them with opinions, agendas, controversy, and just plain drama: the people who are giving us the truth are unprotected and in danger by our own government.
As America’s government becomes more and more opaque, it’s up to the press to counterbalance and restore the transparency that was originally expected when this nation was first built. This has become consistently more difficult, as journalists are struggling to break through and provide important information to the public. It’s vital that sources, such as whistleblowers, feel comfortable enough to come forward to journalists and present information that would otherwise risk their identity, privacy, freedom, or even life. Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, and Thomas Drake have all experienced severe prosecution from the government for revealing critical information to the public via the press (Cusack). The message our government is sending is one of deterrence for those who may want to come forward. It says, “If you expose us, you’ll be punished for it.”
Shield Laws are laws that give reporters the protection to not be forced into revealing confidential information or sources in state court (Shield). Yet the real purpose of shield laws is to protect the sources themselves, as well as encourage them to come forward to the press. However these state laws vary, and so does the privilege itself. This creates debates around scenarios such as if they got the information from a source in one state, but published it in another state, which state shield law would apply? The proposed Free Flow of Information Act would supposedly try to cure that by creating a federal shield law. Many large news corporations are all for this bill to be passed. The National Press Photographers Association says, “The bill would provide clear and meaningful protection at the federal level for journalists against improper intrusion into free press” (Todd).
However, smaller news agencies and independent journalists alike aren’t sold. The Senate voted on how to define ‘journalist’. In which they said that a “covered journalist” is an “employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information” (Todd). If the Free Flow of Information Act were to be passed, a Senate-made definition of what a journalist is would be passed along with it. This does little to support freelance journalists who constantly provide a wide-spectrum of coverage on overlooked stories. Freelance journalism would become, in a sense, unprotected and enable the government to prosecute any group that isn’t legislatively recognized as a news agency as well any independents, bloggers, freelancers, and self-declared journalists who don’t fit the definition. Additionally, the bill itself states that a judge must first “weigh the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in ‘gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue and maintaining the free flow of information’” (The Times). This means that depending on whether it’s a civil case, criminal case, or national security case, the protection granted would vary depending on the case type as well as the judicial interpretation of the term “public interest.” Tricia Todd, director/producer of “Killing the Messenger,” and co-director/producer Eric Matthies even go so far as to state in a Huffington Post Editorial that the Free Flow of Information Act “...really intends to shield the politicians from pesky journalists looking to unearth wrong doing” (Todd).
If whistleblowers and freelance journalists alike are unable to do their jobs without fear of harsh government interference, then it’s justified to say that our government has made a direct disacknowledgment of one of our First Amendment Freedoms. In addition to this serious infringement by the government, the media news industry has serious flaws of it’s own.
Information is constantly being broadcasted through our phones, Internet, radio, and news publications from hundreds of sources. Through all of this, it becomes difficult to separate the truth from the half-truth, and even the half-truth from the false. Some television broadcasts say that climate change is a hoax, while online articles fanatically obsess over the urgency of the issue. Which one can you trust? Which claim is true? How do you even define the truth of a matter?
In 2013 a 59% majority reported a perception of media bias within the United States (Media bias). Media bias is defined as “when the media in the United States systematically emphasizes one particular point of view in a way that contravenes the standards of professional journalism” (Media bias). There are multiple different types of media bias including advertising bias, corporate bias, mainstream bias, sensationalism, liberal bias, conservative bias, and concision bias (Media bias). Depending on which type of bias is being broadcasted, people will receive a plethora of skewed perceptions based on what they listen to, watch, and read. An example of this can be found in two news agencies coverage of the 2012 political campaign. Pew Research Center reports that, “In the final stretch of the campaign, nearly half (46%) of Obama’s coverage on Fox [News] was negative, while just 6% was positive in tone. But MSNBC produced an even harsher narrative about the Republican of the race: 71% of Romney’s coverage was negative, versus 3% positive” (Holcomb). Mixed tones of coverage from both sides weren’t included in the report. Subjective news reporting within left-winged and right-winged news agencies clash constantly, creating black and white pictures from both sides that encourages audiences to not acknowledge the truth of the facts or information itself, but instead “take political sides.” This creates fragmented news, where the truth becomes unclear due to a tidal wave of extreme media bias.
Some would argue that the media and the news is a “market place of ideas.” This represents the viewpoint that having freedom of the press is to create competition for ideas in free, transparent public discourse. What the news is currently doing – and what corresponds with the marketplace of ideas – is providing manipulated viewpoints for audiences as well as presenting misleading information or facts that do not coincide with the reality of the issues and events at hand. The purpose of the press should be to present objective, non-bias news that the public can then form their own opinions on. Our news is so incredibly fragmented, it’s become just as gridlocked in politics and money as our very own government.
The diversity of where our news comes from and who owns it also raises concerns. There has been a rapid consolidation of news agencies due to the rising of corporate media conglomerates. There are currently seven of these corporate media conglomerates including Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, 21st Century Fox, and Comcast (Media conglomerate).
Vice, an up-and-coming media outlet, is a timely example of how these conglomerates work. Vice provides what they call “immersive investigative journalism” (Vice) through online video documentaries about current events and issues. Over the recent two years, Vice has expanded significantly; with a recently landed series on HBO as well as a new branch of coverage called Vice News. Corporate media conglomerates have taken notice of the trendy media company. Tom Freston, who runs Viacom corporate media conglomerate, has become both an investor and close advisor of Vice, running on it’s board. Rupert Murdock, the chairman of 21st Century Fox, was recently seen stepping out of his black SUV and into Vice headquarters in Brooklyn. Both Disney and Time Warner have been discussing deals as well (Mahler). It isn’t coincidental that four of the seven corporate media conglomerates have shown up at Vice’s doorstep. To refuse the offer of a corporate media conglomerate and stay an independent organization would allow for companies like Vice to have freedom over their own content, but they would be competing against multi-billion dollar corporations for audiences. More money means the ability to reach out further to viewers. If they join, they’re safe from the worry of competition, but would have a significantly less amount of wiggle room to explore and report their own content. Vice has not brokered a deal yet, but when presented with the choice of either competing with or joining a corporation, it seems that with whichever decision is made they’re still going to get the short end of the stick.
When putting all of the elements together, (governmental interference in the press, threatening sources, creating bills that limit journalists, political influence in how news is broadcasted, media bias, and a lacking diversity in news organizations), it’s important to question whether we actually have freedom of the press. Our democracy will not thrive without it. Citizens need accurate news –facts and information that gives justice to the reality of our world– to decide and act upon. If what we’re being fed is anything but the truth, and if the government disallows it, we are not free. As Thomas Jefferson once said: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Click Here For Bibliography