The "Free Press" Under Attack--Remember History, Anyone?

As today's Daily Progress Report of the Center for American Progress has noted:

"The New York Times--which earlier broke the story on President Bush's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program--has been the main target of attacks by the right wing and the administration" for its recent reporting on the Bush administration's not-so-secret program to track international banking transactions." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) argued that the paper's reporters, editors, and publishers responsible for the story should be charged under the Espionage Act, punishable by up to 20 years in prison."

As the CFAP Progress Report argues, however, "While journalists do need to weigh whether reporting classified information will jeopardize national security, the administration's argument jeopardizes the 'aggressive, independent press' that is an 'essential ingredient for self-government.'"

In fact, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller provided an eloquent defense of the New York Times decision to publish this story in a response to readers. Here is a one paragraph excerpt from his response, which you can read in full here:

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish. [emphasis added]

The Progress Report continues:

Not only did [Rep. Peter] King call the New York Times journalists "treasonous," but he also said the paper is "putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people." Yesterday on Fox News, he likened the journalists' actions to "handing over confidential documents to Osama bin Laden." Talk show host Melanie Morgan backed up King's argument that the New York Times editor is guilty of treason and right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin told the New York Times and Los Angeles Times to "learn when to shut up." The conservative House leadership has introduced a measure to criticize the New York Times for its SWIFT reporting, which the House will vote upon either today or tomorrow. The resolution is being drafted under the leadership of Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner's (R-OH) office.

Of course, it is not only some radical right Republicans in Congress who are leading this crusade against the free press. Rather, this anti-free press crusade is being egged on by the White House:

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney came out strongly against the journalists who published the story. On Monday, Bush said that for "people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America." Cheney singled out the New York Times in his criticisms: "Some of the press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs." Snow went even further on Monday, suggesting the New York Times had undermined Americans' "right to live."

[To read more from the CFAP Progress Report, click here.]

For someone like Snow, who represents the White House, to be suggesting that the publication decisions of the editors of the New York Times in this case are undermining our security, safety, and even our "right to live," can--in the context of the right-wing accusations of treason mentioned above--only be read as a deliberate and calculated campaign of attack on the freedom of the press.

Of course, such attacks are not new to history. Tyrannies of the past, and power-grabs by previous presidents in our own history, have often used the same kinds of attacks on the press as we are now seeing directed against the New York Times, to intimidate and silence. Remember Watergate, anyone?

Ask Ben Bradlee--the Washington Post editor who oversaw the publication of the news stories by Woodward and Bernstein that exposed the Watergate cover-up, and who supported the publication of the Pentagon Papers--about the ways the Nixon administration tried to silence the press by accusing the Washington Post and others on his "enemies list" of undermining the security of the country.

As Bradlee noted in a recently broadcast interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS:

National security is a really big problem for journalists, because no journalist worth his salt wants to endanger the national security, but the law talks about anyone who endangers the security of the United States is going to go to jail. So, here you are, especially in the Pentagon. Some guy tells you something. He says that's a national security matter. Well, you're supposed to tremble and get scared and it never, almost never means the security of the national government.

[It's] more likely to mean the security or the personal happiness of the guy who is telling you something... Because, you know, if he gets caught, why, he may not be so secure. He may be out on his tail.

And, in the end, Nixon's attacks on Bradlee at the Washington Post, and on others in the Press, actually had the effect of strengthening the freedom of the Press as the country and the Supreme Court rallied to support the institution of the free press in the 1970s.

As Bradlee quipped in a 1995 speech at Johns Hopkins, "I want to thank Richard Nixon for his help in furthering my career... It really is ironic, isn't it, that Nixon, who hated journalists and hated The Washington Post in particular, did so much for our current health?"

Bradlee could joke about Nixon, and was able to support Woodward and Bernstein the way he did during the Watergate investigation in the 1970s, largely because of what has been called one of the most important Supreme Court decisions ever on the freedom of the press: the June 30, 1971 decision in New York Times v. the United States, which supported the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post.

In its petition to the court [in this case], the executive branch of the government asserted that it should be the sole judge of national security needs and should be granted a court order to enforce that viewpoint. The [New York Times] newspaper countered that this would violate First Amendment press freedoms provided for under the U.S. Constitution. It also argued that the real government motive was political censorship rather than protection of national security.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, arguing that the Constitution has a "heavy presumption" in favor of press freedom. As James C. Goodale, who served as general counsel to the New York Times when the U.S. Supreme Court supported the publication of the classified Pentagon Papers, has written:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Although the First Amendment specifically mentions only the federal Congress, this provision now protects the press from all government, whether local, state or federal.

The founders of the United States enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained in a 1974 speech, the "primary purpose" of the First Amendment was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches" (the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary).

Of course, the Nixon administration was by no means the first to try to protect itself against public scrutiny by silencing the press. As Justice Potter recognized in his 1974 gloss on the importance of the free press as a "fourth institution" to provide a check on the abuses of governmental power, the first amendment was important from the beginning of our nation's history as a bullwark for protecting press freedom.

But earlier in our history the first amendment by itself did not keep the press from being persecuted and silenced. During the 1790s, Jeffersonian critics of the Adams administration who published their views in the press were accused of being treasonous, and were prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition laws of that time.

Apparently, contemporary critics of the New York Times, like talk show host Melanie Morgan and right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin (mentioned above), as well as this White House, would like to take us back to the 1790s. Fortunately for us today, Supreme Court decisions like the one regarding the Pentagon Papers provide US citizens and our free press a few more protections than existed in the 1790s.

But such freedoms and protections are never completely secure from being undermined by concerted attack.

Let us all struggle to make sure that the current campaign of attacks on the free press, by the White House and others, are not successful in undermining these protections, which are crucial to securing meaningful democracy for all US citizens.
New Democratic Agenda