Global lessons from a press in peril

From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate, the American press once held power to account; now its very survival is in question, showing that freedom of the press isn’t a given.

Martin Baron

Every year of my journalistic career of nearly half a century, I have known only a free and independent press in the United States. My professional start was in the 1970s. Those were years when Americans could see clearly how the press served democracy:

With the publication of the Pentagon Papers, first by The New York Times, the American public learnt of the failures its government had covered up during a long war in Vietnam that cost so many lives. And then there was Watergate, an investigation spearheaded by The Washington Post. US citizens learnt how their president had weaponised the government against his political adversaries, abusing his powers and sabotaging the Constitution.

In the decades since those revelations, I took for granted that my country would always enjoy press freedom — and that the First Amendment of our Constitution would guarantee it. I no longer take any of that for granted. I no longer assume that the constitutional order will hold in the United States. Or that the rule of law will prevail. Or that free expression – not just for the press, but for all Americans – will endure.

That is because we have a president who has demonstrated disdain for traditional restraints on his power. Because a majority in Congress remains servile. Because a majority on the Supreme Court has handed this president extraordinary authority and immunity. Because the president appears determined to lay siege to institutional pillars of democracy, with the press as a high-priority target. And it is because those institutions are proving to be more fragile and faint-hearted than I imagined possible.

And perhaps most concerning to me is that we now live in a time when people are unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between what is true and what is false. It is only natural — and, in a democracy, expected — that we will disagree about which policies are best. Yet today we cannot agree on how to determine a fact. All of the elements we have historically relied upon to establish facts — education, expertise, experience and, above all, evidence — have been denigrated, dismissed and denied.

How can democracy flourish, or even survive, when we can’t determine the most basic facts? If democracy is in danger, a free press is, too. An independent press cannot survive without a democracy. And there is a corollary to that. A democracy cannot survive without a free press. There has never been a democracy without a media that is free and independent.

The playbook of aspiring authoritarians is well-established. High on their to-do list is crushing the press, an institution that can shed light on what political leaders are up to and that might hold them to account. Their repressive practices extend well beyond the press, however—they seek to abolish free expression altogether, the right of musicians, authors, artists, playwrights and screenwriters to express themselves as they wish. The right of the public to listen to, see and read what they feel they should. The right of business executives, academics, activists and political leaders to advocate for the policies they believe in. The right
of every one of us to speak freely with family, friends, neighbours and colleagues without fear of surveillance and reprisal.

The rights that the press strives to safeguard are no different from the rights most people want for themselves—the freedom to enquire into facts, to share what they’ve learnt, and to communicate what they believe.
Much more is at risk than the freedom to express opinions. The real target of autocrats is truth itself. They aim to extinguish all independent arbiters of fact, whether they happen to be judges, scholars, scientists, statisticians or journalists. In nations tilting toward authoritarianism, heads of state claim sole ownership of the truth. And they rig, suppress or erase data to advance their lies. 

That is what is happening now in the United States. Facts are under attack while the government demands that its fictions be unquestioningly repeated.

For decades, the United States was a bastion of free expression of all types, with constitutional protections seemingly secured. That is no longer the case. We were a model for citizens in other nations who yearned for similar liberty. We no longer are. We were a forceful champion for these freedoms elsewhere. Civil rights activists, democracy advocates and independent journalists worldwide often counted on our support when faced with repression. They no longer can expect it.

In a famous 1941 speech about four essential human freedoms, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt listed “freedom of speech and expression” as the very first. And he pointedly added the words “everywhere in the world”. Today, with an aspiring autocrat as president, the United States is failing to embrace the freedoms that Franklin Delano Roosevelt considered indispensable for a better world. Independent media was already in peril globally, a casualty of diminished confidence in democracy and the rise of a new generation of authoritarians. Our president has placed the press worldwide — and freedom of expression generally — in even greater jeopardy.

What President Donald Trump and his allies contemptuously disregard is why the founders of the United States drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution. James Madison was the principal author. And in describing the role of the press and of free expression, he spoke of the “right of freely examining public characters and measures”. The word “examining”
deserves special attention. Here is how the dictionary defines its meaning: “To inspect closely”, “to enquire into carefully/investigate”, “to test by questioning in order to determine progress, fitness,
or knowledge”.

Apply that to journalists, and it means we are not stenographers. Nor should we be. We go behind the curtain and beneath the surface – to learn who did what and why, who will be affected and how, and who influenced those decisions and with what intent.

The purpose of journalism, in my view, is to provide the public with the information it needs and deserves to know so that people might govern themselves. Embedded within that mission is a particularly high calling: holding powerful individuals and institutions to account.

Those with power have the capacity to do enormous good. When they do, and when ordinary individuals do, we in the press should make that known. Praiseworthy efforts to improve society should be shared with others.

At the same time, some wrongs can be committed at an extraordinary scale. Often the fault lies with those who possess disproportionate power, including the means to cover up their misdeeds. Immoral or unlawful conduct can go undetected for years or decades. Ordinary people can suffer severe harm. Victims are often ignored or muzzled.

So, the public has much at stake in the struggle for free expression and an independent press. People must have a right to voice their grievances. The media should be prepared to listen and investigate.

When there is grave wrongdoing, often no one but journalists will explore the facts. When there are no journalists to report on corruption, inevitably there is more of it, with ordinary citizens paying the greatest price. When no independent media exists to draw attention, those who possess immense power seize the opportunity to acquire more. Their interests are served; the public’s needs are not.

As the US government abandons the cause of freedom worldwide, my hope is that citizens in other countries now will become a model for Americans who took their own freedoms for granted. They can show us how best to struggle against a repressive government. And in the difficult fight to uphold the fundamental democratic principles of free expression and an independent press, they can provide inspiration.

(The writer was executive editor of The Washington Post from 2013 to 2021 and previously held the top editor position at The Boston Globe and Miami Herald)

(DH is part of the global initiative to mark World News Day on September 28, and this article is the fourth in a series published as part of this initiative)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.