For many of us, we rely on the
media to provide that openness and transparency when they are reporting on what
those in power say and do. Whilst we may not always agree with the opinions
given (via the media), most people with a level of intelligence should be able
to apply a level of logic in determining the validity of what they are being
told. We always have access to transcripts, videos, past behaviours etc., to
assist. We have many reputable news outlets out there; particularly independent
news sites. We also have tools to help us determine media bias, fake news,
click bait sites etc. Even MSM sites are capable of and do publish facts. Not
everything they say is corrupt totally lies.
When those in power restrict
media access I question why. What are they trying to hide? Because they in
taking that action are then restricting our ability to decide if what we are
being told is the truth. It is a dangerous precedent. It is even more dangerous
when politicians and the leaders of countries do this. This applies to the leader
of the so called free world; Donald J Trump. You can’t claim to be the leader
of the free world if you suppress and continually attack the press because you
don’t like what they report about you. As a result you scream fake news at
every opportunity or you ban them. That is not the free world. That is
dictatorship.
Unfortunately, Trump’s strategy
is working on a lot of people. Despite reports citing official documents,
credible first hand named sources and being published by credible news outlets
there are those who just scream fake regardless. I had an interesting exchange on
this very subject a few days ago. More surprising it was with a person who has
appeared very open in the past. They do say if you repeat something often
enough it becomes truth to some.
This highlights just another
event where Trump has banned the media. Why? Who would know?
Freedom of speech and hence
freedom of the press is crucial. Thomas Jefferson recognised that when he
penned these words to Edward Carrington (an American soldier and statesman from
Virginia).
“The basis of our governments
being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that
right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a
moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive
those papers and be capable of reading them.”
While we might argue that our
media (at times) does a poor job, the principle of freedom of the press cannot
be restricted. Without it, we have no real protection. It’s down to us to
decide if what we are being told makes sense and to make intelligent decisions
on that basis. In other words free to decide for ourselves.
I read this recently. It was from
a speech delivered back in 2006. How some people respond to this I suspect
depends in some part on what side of the political divide they sit?
“It is precisely when the free
press is telling us what we don’t want to hear, when it is challenging
government officials, exposing government misconduct and refusing to be the unofficial
mouthpiece of any government agency that the press stands most in need of
constitutional protection.
A press that is the house organ
for the government doesn’t need it. A press that only reports the good news,
that ignores the scandals and the corruption, that is the cheerleader for every
misadventure and stands silent when our liberties are threatened by the very
government we created to protect them has no need of such protection.
It is only when the news media dares
to speak truth to power and reveal the truth about those who wield power that
it requires the umbrella of constitutional protection……….”
We have to demand open honest
reporting from our media. But to blacken everyone because we don’t like what
they say is nonsense. I fear anyone who tries to control what the media can and
cannot access more so that the media itself. History tells us we should.
