By Arthur Solomon
"Do as I say, not do as I do," is an expression that covers many aspects of the human experience.
But what makes that adage especially relevant to me is UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day slated May 1-3 in Washington.
The event is worthy of a special celebration. But it is an oxymoron as a United Nation's event, considering that the UN for many years has turned a blind eye toward media censorship, including jailing journalists, in the many countries that practice inhuman rights.
Freedom of the press is assured by the First Amendment to our Constitution. Thus, the U.S. has more press freedom than any other major country, but the fight to keep it uncensored and to protect journalists from jail for not divulging sources never ends.
The earliest attempt to stifle the press occurred shortly after the U.S. gained its independence, when in 1798 the Federalist party championed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Since then our government has attempted to limit press freedom many times. Here are some not-to-distant examples:
- During the First World War pictures of American casualties were banned by censors. This prohibition continued into the early years of the Second World War.
- Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, in 1991, instituted a ban on media coverage of ceremonies honoring the return of military casualties, which was allowed from Second World War through 1989. A first amendment challenge by the media was denied. But in February 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates lifted the ban.
The most famous first amendment challenge occurred during the lifetime of most of us:
- In 1971, information about top secret U.S. military involvement in Vietnam --the Pentagon Papers -- was published by the New York Times. The U.S. sought to stop publication of the papers but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper.
And even more recently, the attempt to censor freedom of the press continues:
- During the clean-up of the BP environmental disaster spill, the U.S. Coast Guard instituted a regulation that journalists may face a $40,000 fine, felony charges, and up to five years in prison for coming too close to spill clean-up efforts without permission.
- The Washington Post reported Dec. 4, 2010, that several government agencies warned employees and contractors that WikiLeaks information posted on Web sites and printed in newspapers are still classified and it is a violation of policy to read them. (Known as the "close your eyes" when trolling the internet or reading a newspaper admonition.)
Of course, not all censorship attempts are the result of government actions to prevent publication of so-called secret information.
There is another type of censorship -- organized or individual self-censorship -- especially in show business, when individuals, or groups decide not to see a movie, Broadway show, watch a TV series or attend a performance of an entertainer because they find the material offensive. That's okay with me, as long as they do not use intimidation tactics. Unfortunately, the actions of some of these groups equate to ultra-censorship by threatening boycotts or worse.
Unfortunately, despite its continuing demand for openness in government, the press itself is not above condoning censorship. In March, once again the Gridiron Club refused to let C-Span cover the dinner. As someone who has attended one of these restricted segregated club-like affairs, the only reason I can think of prohibiting live C-Span coverage is to protect the reputation of the journalists who perform in and write the lame sketches and jokes.
Another type of censorship is even more disturbing. It is when economic powerhouses use their muscles for censorship purposes, Example: shortly after WikiLeaks said it would issue information detrimental to at least one bank in 2011, as the New York Times pointed out on December 26, a group of corporate financial giants said it would not process transactions intended for WikiLeaks, thus threatening to cut off it's financial lifeline.
We all know the power that lobbyists play when our elected representatives enact legislation. That too is a form of censorship because those actions most often override the will of the electorate.
On April 2, the New York Times reported that the federal government’s rules about listing the amount of calories on food excluded movies, theaters, and other establishments that were not primarily in business to sell food. This despite that the original F.D.A. rules would have included movie theaters. (So eat and drink away at non- restaurant establishments; just pretend those foods are free of calories.)
There already is too convenient a marriage between influential, powerful corporate and financial institutions and our elected officials. That’s a mélange that is equally as dangerous as government-enforced censorship. It's bad for individuals, horrendous for our economy and seriously troubling for the continuing of our democracy.
This government-by-troika must be curtailed by our elected representatives starting now before the U.S. echoes what happened in communist and fascist Europe, Asia, Africa and South America.
What Would Thomas Jefferson say? We know what he would say about press censorship and the power of corporations.
Jefferson said, "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
He also said that if it were left to him to decide "whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."
During my nearly 25 years at Burson-Marsteller, I traveled internationally as a media consultant to Korean and Australian government and Olympic officials and played key roles on a variety of significant national and international sports and nonsports accounts, so I know how to keep information confidential. But there's a big difference between PR plans and information that is locked away by governments professing to be transparent.
I'm not normally a proponent of people leaking secret documents, but sometimes it is the only way the truth will be known. So before condemning newspaper publication of the WikiLeaks information, consider this: would you rather have a government that limits the media's right to decide what to publish -- like in so many countries that the U.N. fancies and will celebrate on World Press Freedom Day -- or would you rather have a free and independent press to be the decider?
What would Thomas Jefferson say: I would hope he would echo the words of Potter Stewart, a Supreme Court Justice appointed by President Eisenhower, who sat on the high court eons after Jefferson's death: "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime."
On July 4th, 1966, the Freedom on Information Act was signed into law. But the fight to inform Americans about the inner-most activities of their government still goes on.
* * *
Arthur Solomon was senior VP at Burson-Marsteller, where handled national and international accounts. He is available at [email protected]. |