U.S. News Leaders Raise Concerns Over Declining Press Freedoms

[Social Media]

 

Leaders of major news organizations in the United States are voicing serious concerns about the state of press freedom in the country, especially in light of alarming declines observed in other democratic nations. Traditionally seen as a global beacon for free expression, the United States is now facing what many see as a historic low point in press freedoms.

 

The growing alarm was notably highlighted by A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, who took the unusual step of penning an opinion piece for The Washington Post. In his essay, Sulzberger warned of the dangers facing press freedoms in the U.S., especially in the context of the upcoming election. He pointed to recent trends in democratic nations like Hungary and Brazil, where press freedoms have been significantly eroded, as a stark reminder of the potential risks.

 

"Over the past century in the United States, Trump stands out for his aggressive and sustained efforts to undermine the free press," Sulzberger wrote. He emphasized the critical importance of safeguarding these freedoms, which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment. "I hope our nation, with protections for a free press explicitly enshrined in the First Amendment, will maintain its distinctively open path, regardless of the outcome of this election or any other."

 

Sulzberger's decision to publish his essay in The Washington Post also served as a symbolic gesture of unity among leading news organizations in the fight to protect press freedoms. "I'm grateful to The Post for running it, especially given the length," Sulzberger noted in a message to his staff. He praised The Post for being more than just a competitor, recognizing it as a close partner on matters of press freedom. "These challenges cannot be solved by one institution," he added, underscoring the need for a collective effort to address these issues.

 

The concerns raised by Sulzberger are part of a broader trend within the global news industry. The brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 marked a significant moment in the fight for press freedom, with The Post and its former CEO Fred Ryan becoming prominent voices in this struggle. More recently, Dow Jones CEO and Wall Street Journal publisher Almar Latour has taken up the mantle, particularly in the wake of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich's release from Russia.

 

Latour expressed optimism about the solidarity shown by the global news industry in response to Gershkovich's ordeal. "It's been heartening to see the global news industry come together around Evan," Latour said in an interview with Axios. He noted that this unity has brought the critical issue of press freedom to the forefront in ways that haven't been seen in recent years, especially on such a large scale.

 

As the U.S. grapples with these challenges, the actions of autocratic leaders in countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Russia serve as a cautionary tale. These leaders have spent years undermining the free press, providing a blueprint for democratic leaders in nations like India, Israel, Brazil, and Guatemala, who may be inclined to follow a similar path. Reflecting on the situation in Brazil under former President Jair Bolsonaro, Sulzberger observed, "Though much of the damage he caused to democratic traditions has been reversed, the norms around the free press and free expression remain weakened."

 

The warnings from U.S. news leaders highlight the precarious state of press freedom, both at home and abroad, and underscore the importance of vigilance in protecting this fundamental pillar of democracy.

 

Credit: AXIOS 2024-09-07

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[Tug]

Good article I’m great full for Mr shultzburger and others for keeping this issue in the forefront.

[impulse]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

Good article I’m great full for Mr shultzburger and others for keeping this issue in the forefront.

 

At the same time the White House admonishes Tucker Carlson for exercising his right to free speech?

 

[Tug]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

At the same time the White House admonishes Tucker Carlson for exercising his right to free speech?

 

Carlson has the press freedom to pander to whatever low life scum dweller he likes,just like the White House and us regular folks have the freedom to call him out for it.

[Watawattana]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

At the same time the White House admonishes Tucker Carlson for exercising his right to free speech?

And everyone has the ability to stop watching or listening to Carlson and any channel that gives him air time.  Stop giving him the oxygen of attention and in the end he'll fade back into the sewer he came from.

[impulse]

30 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

And everyone has the ability to stop watching or listening to Carlson and any channel that gives him air time.  Stop giving him the oxygen of attention and in the end he'll fade back into the sewer he came from.

 

You don't want to listen to it, fine.  Remain ignorant.  I want to hear and understand opposing viewpoints, even the ones I vehemently disagree with.  It's impossible to defend against even a radical idea without understanding where it comes from, if only to identify the holes in their logic, or lack of it.  And that's my right of free speech. Not to be blocked from hearing opposing views.

 

Edited September 7 by impulse

[Zab1e]

The media was never free. It is the mouth piece of whoever has the most $. Its’s sad that we are told what to think and ppl like Julien Assange and Snowden are punished for telling us the truth. Yet we are stupidly listening to the lies fed to us. Iraq is in shambles for a war based on lies… yet no one was punished. We are basically cattle… we don’t question. Those that do are ostracized. 

[Watawattana]

55 minutes ago, impulse said:

You don't want to listen to it, fine.  Remain ignorant.  I want to hear and understand opposing viewpoints, even the ones I vehemently disagree with.  It's impossible to defend against even a radical idea without understanding where it comes from, if only to identify the holes in their logic, or lack of it.  And that's my right of free speech. Not to be blocked from hearing opposing views.

Yeah, seems reasonable. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

You don't want to listen to it, fine.  Remain ignorant.  I want to hear and understand opposing viewpoints, even the ones I vehemently disagree with.  It's impossible to defend against even a radical idea without understanding where it comes from, if only to identify the holes in their logic, or lack of it.  And that's my right of free speech. Not to be blocked from hearing opposing views.

 

Holocaust denial is not a ‘view point’ it is deliberately constructed lie.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

You don't want to listen to it, fine.  Remain ignorant.

The deliberately constructed Holocaust denial lie does not provide any knowledge or insights, it is a lie designed to instill and promote ignorance of the truth.

 

 

 

Edited September 7 by Chomper Higgot

[Watawattana]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The deliberately constructed Holocaust denial lie does not provide any knowledge or insights, it is a lie designed to instill and promote ignorance of the truth.

As 'impulse' implied I am ignorant of many things, like we all are of course as we are (supposed to be) human.  I am not  that familiar with (or am ignorant of) how the Constitution and its amendments are applied in civil or criminal law.

 

I understand that it is the 1st Amendment that protects the freedom of speech.  But it seems not a complete protection of the freedom of speech, as Alex Jones may be aware after he was on the wrong end of defamation lawsuit for his Sandy Hook theories.

 

So my question is, as the guy interviewed by Tucker Carlson is obviously wrong, and he'll clearly been upsetting people with his comments, how come he isn't sued or subject to criminal investigation?

 

My guess is he can't be held criminally liable due to the 1st Amendment, but he clearly could be found liable in a civil case?  Is that right?

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

As 'impulse' implied I am ignorant of many things, like we all are of course as we are (supposed to be) human.  I am not  that familiar with (or am ignorant of) how the Constitution and its amendments are applied in civil or criminal law.

 

I understand that it is the 1st Amendment that protects the freedom of speech.  But it seems not a complete protection of the freedom of speech, as Alex Jones may be aware after he was on the wrong end of defamation lawsuit for his Sandy Hook theories.

 

So my question is, as the guy interviewed by Tucker Carlson is obviously wrong, and he'll clearly been upsetting people with his comments, how come he isn't sued or subject to criminal investigation?

 

My guess is he can't be held criminally liable due to the 1st Amendment, but he clearly could be found liable in a civil case?  Is that right?

I recommend reading the 1st Amendment.

[Watawattana]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I recommend reading the 1st Amendment.

I had taken a look but found it a bit impenetrable.   But, based on your reply I took another look and found a different web site.   

 

This is the bit I looked at - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-8/ALDE_00013809/.

 

The latest item on the link states "Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend".  So, the Carlson guy didn't break any law, and Alex Jones must have lost for some other reason as he clearly wasn't outside of the 1st Amendment umbrella.  So, my own question answered by Google.

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

I had taken a look but found it a bit impenetrable.   But, based on your reply I took another look and found a different web site.   

 

This is the bit I looked at - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-8/ALDE_00013809/.

 

The latest item on the link states "Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend".  So, the Carlson guy didn't break any law, and Alex Jones must have lost for some other reason as he clearly wasn't outside of the 1st Amendment umbrella.  So, my own question answered by Google.

He hasn’t been ‘banned’.

 

If you don’t understand why Jones lost then you perhaps didn’t grasp the 1st Amendment.

 

This is the issue, Jones was sued by private individuals, not by the Government. There is nothing in the 1st Amendment which prohibits those cases against Jones.

[Watawattana]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you don’t understand why Jones lost then you perhaps didn’t grasp the 1st Amendment.

Yeah, most likely.  Anyhow, moving on...