Similar negative attitudes toward an independent press were felt at home when the administration encouraged self-censorship in the name of patriotism. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer warned reporters to watch what they say, and talk-show host Bill Maher ultimately lost his job because of remarks that were critical of Bush — and he wasn’t the only one.
- “In the new post-September 11 world, a journalist could find him- or herself stranded in the no-man’s land between the public’s desire for strong government and the journalist’s traditional duty to provide analysis and opinion. ...Journalists who were used to exposing politicians for their questionably activities now found themselves under intense scrutiny. The pressure on an “offending” journalist could be considerable....”
Journalists abdicated their roles as watchdogs over the government and defenders of the public interest, meekly accepting whatever crumbs of information were handed to them by government minders and rarely raising any criticism when fed implausible claims about the war or threats of terrorism. Had they been more skeptical, they might have held on to their credibility — both at home and abroad:
- “Talking to the New York Times, Fox News anchor Brit Hume said, “The fact that some [Afghani] people are dying, is that really news? And is it to be treated in a semi-straight-faced way? I think not.” ...The comments of Ailes, Hume, Rather, and Rivera showed little appreciation of the possibility that by aligning themselves so readily with the American government, they were endangering the independence of the media as a whole. By expressing their support for the government’s actions, by wearing emotive symbols, by revealing their desire for revenge or hoping for the chance to kill bin Laden, journalists were undercutting and undermining the objectivity that journalists so badly needed to report in safety from the conflict zone.”
A final indignity inflicted upon a free press is in some ways the most serious because it threatens the very basis of press freedom all around the world. America functions as a sort of moral leader for many people: when we set a higher standard for ourselves, we also do so for others. Conversely, when we set a lower standard for ourselves, others see that as a good excuse to limit freedoms at home. Perhaps this should not be so, but it is what it is.
Because of the Bush administration’s consistent infringements upon traditional civil liberties, other nations have used the excuse of joining the “war on terrorism” to crack down on civil liberties among their own people — and that includes clamping down on journalists trying to report the truth. In places like China, Zimbabwe, and Uzbekistan, dissidents are treated like terrorists in part because even America has refused to make any distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters.
Thus, the legacy of America’s assault on a free press may not merely cause problems at home, but may also cause long-term damage to freedom and democracy around the world. Aren’t freedom and democracy two of the ostensible reasons for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, though? Dadge does an excellent job exploring these contradictions and anyone interested in the role of a free press and the necessity of free speech will be well served by his book.
« Back...
