Our First Amendment is the most heavy-hitter in the Bill of Rights. Everyone can name what the Second Amendment does, but few can name all five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment, despite it affecting our way of life in such a greater daily way.
You see, the First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to gather and protest peacefully, Freedom to petition the government to change laws, and Freedom of the Press.
That last one is our topic of the day.
President Trump has long toed the line of breaking this Amendment, between getting sued during his first term for banning a CNN reporter from the White House, cutting funding to public broadcasting agencies, and his frequent use of words like “fake news” to lower the credibility of news agencies. All of these things on their own are worthy of getting their own articles, but this past week, Trump’s actions against Freedom of the Press have escalated, and I want to focus on that.
He banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House access. The White House is public property, and they are legally allowed to report on public events there, making this extremely unconstitutional. And then, in protest of this, a lot of other television networks suspended their scheduled Whtie House press duties. Even Fox News, who rarely goes against the Trump administration, joined in the protest.
I enjoy the rare moments like this where all sides of the political spectrum come together to show that we still care about the Constitution. It doesn’t happen very often these days.
And Trump’s strongarm against the Press immediately backfired, because as it turns out, the press pool is responsible for a lot more than it seems. The very next White House event was a ribbon cutting for his new helipad, and with no one to give him a microphone, the live feed was impossible to discern.
But Trump has never been one to take humiliation without retaliating. And instead of admitting he was wrong and allowing the banned companies back in, he doubled down as usual.
That very day came the announcement of Trump TV, an exclusive 24/7 Trump-approved livestream channel. Making a government-owned media channel because he dislikes how the media is representing him is one of the most communistic things that’s happened in our country since the Federal Reserve Act. It sounds like something that would happen in China or North Korea, and it is embarrassing that we’re allowing it to happen here.
I will say though, watching the same people who talk about their hatred for communism defend Trump TV on social media has been eye-opening for me. It’s like getting a front-row seat at how the propaganda that causes people to support communism happens in the first place. It’s like the frog-in-boiling-water theory. If you throw a frog in boiling water, he will jump out immediately. But if you place him in lukewarm water and slowly heat it, he will stay until he dies. I think the Trump administration knew that analogy well and used it to fool a lot of people into supporting him, just to go against everything he promised.
Thankfully, a federal judge gave the Trump Administration a 14-day restraining order, meaning that as of Friday, the banned press pool members were allowed back at the White House until a more permanent ruling against the bans happen. Hopefully that judge will rule in their favor.
But did Trump have a point about some news agencies being too biased? It is true that most news agencies lean left or right, but is that a problem?
In 1949, when news agencies were in their infancy, the FCC created a policy called the Fairness Doctrine. It required news agencies to give both sides of controversial issues and allow for their discussion to be broadcast to help the public make more informed decisions. In 1987, Congress introduced a bill called Fairness in Broadcasting Act to make the policy a permanent law. It was passed by Congress and was almost our reality until it was vetoed by Ronald Reagan.
Reagan explained his reason for vetoing the bill was basically that he felt that making agencies give the side that they did not agree with went against their own Freedom of Speech. Congress, in return, tried unsuccessfully to override his veto. Their argument was that news agencies had a duty to keep the American public fully informed. Allowed biases could lead to media becoming a form of propaganda, swaying the public’s viewpoints into the way that the news agencies wanted them to think.
Both sides made valid arguments, and it’s undeniable that the bill being vetoed changed the landscape of news agencies permanently. I am thankful that I have the freedom as a journalist to share my views, but also there IS a problem with certain news agencies misrepresenting their facts to sway public opinion. I’m not convinced that passing a newer version of the 1987 Fairness in Broadcasting Act would do anything but cause more division at this point, because people are now so radicalized by both news agencies and their social media feeds. It’s a lot harder to empathize with any opposing viewpoint because we all have some sort of propaganda being shoved down our throats that makes us resistant to hearing the other side out.
I have no idea how to fix this, but hopefully we can all agree for once that there’s a problem here. And just maybe everyone agreeing on something will be the first step in finding a solution.
Taryn Ogletree is a local small business owner and author with previous experience of several years in finance.