How a free press can shackle the public

By Patrick Mattimore

Many of the approximately 800 out-of-town journalists in Beijing to cover the CPPCC and NPC come from Western countries. Particularly those from the U.S., carry a sense that the relative freedom of the press they enjoy back home contributes to better reporting. Putting aside the fact that the American government does restrict the press sometimes by, for example, prohibiting photos of caskets or embedding journalists with the military during the early stages of the Iraq War, the conclusion that "freer is better" may not necessarily be so.

There's an assumption in America that freedom of the press is always a good thing. It's enshrined in the First Amendment to the American Constitution. The amendment prohibits Congress from making laws infringing on freedom of the press. In "Lovell v. City of Griffin," 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

The rationale for having an unfettered press is that it promotes the public's right to access information. The U.S.-based Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics asserts that:
"The public's right to know of events of public importance and interest is the overriding mission of the mass media."

The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) Statement of Principles is in accord:
"The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time."

There is also an American Code of Broadcast News Ethics promulgated by the Radio/Television News Directors Association. That Code states that:
"The primary purpose of broadcast journalism-to inform the public of events of importance and appropriate interest in a manner that is accurate and comprehensive-shall override all other purposes."

If as the SPJ Code asserts, "truth is our ultimate goal" and "(E)very effort must be made to assure that the news context is accurate, free from bias and in context," as ASNE Principles proclaim, the question arises as to how well a "free press" serves those dictates. Specifically, does America's free press promote truth?

Increasingly, the answer is no. A PEW research study in 2009 found that the American "public retained a deep skepticism about what they see, hear and read in the media."

Here are some reasons why:

Anonymous Sources- Organizations like SPJ continue to push for a federal shield law which would provide journalists increased opportunities to offer confidentiality to sources. Unfortunately, state shield laws obscure the news, rather than enlighten readers. U.S. reporters are so mesmerized by an incident like the Watergate Scandal, that they believe even common stories warrant the type of secrecy accorded Deep Throat. What happens instead is that the public is left to "trust the reporter" without any way to judge the expertise of the source or the extent to which she may have been trying to manipulate the press.

Video News Releases- These are really fake TV news. The VNR's are typically provided to TV stations by public relations firms. The "news" segments are designed to be indistinguishable from independently-produced news reports that are distributed and promoted to television newsrooms. TV stations incorporate VNRs into their newscasts, rarely alerting viewers to the source of the footage. While government-funded VNRs have been the most controversial, most VNRs are paid for by corporations (c.f. SourceWatch.org).

Paid Government Shills- Columnist and radio and TV personality Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the government to promote the Administration's No Child Left Behind program. This was done behind-the-scenes without any disclosure. Armstrong's deception was discovered in 2004 and subsequent to the Williams' revelations, two other non-disclosed similar arrangements surfaced between the government and paid shills.

Necessity to compete for news with many sources, including the Internet, leading to inadequate fact checking, sensationalization, and the spread of rumors- During the mid-1990s, I took a month-long trip to Peru. I was changing planes in Houston to return to San Francisco and I picked up a copy of "The New York Times," America's "newspaper of record." That day's edition had a story with a Lima dateline about events in the capital city which were threatening to overthrow the government of then-President Alberto Fujimori. I had been in Lima that morning and two or three days prior to that. I had seen a small non-violent demonstration near the capital building and talked to cab drivers to gauge a sense of their opinions about the government. What struck me most about The Times article was that it was at odds with what I had seen and heard. In fact, what I knew of events in Lima was not newsworthy at all. The likely lone reporter in Lima obviously felt the need to dramatize events in Peru in order to get his story into the paper.

Inadequate controls on reporters- Journalists Stephen Glass of "The New Republic" and Jayson Blair of "The New York Times" became infamous and brought disgrace to their employers when it was revealed that the two men fabricated published stories, quotations, people and events. It's impossible to know to what extent other Glass' and Blair's are working in newsrooms out there.

Press releases- To a much greater extent than VNR's, newsrooms rely on press releases. These releases are often slanted to color the news according to the point of view that the supplier wishes to present. Newsrooms rarely have the time or interest to do much fact checking beyond the story they are handed. For example, if a public interest group has conducted a survey to learn the public's attitudes about an issue, the results of the survey will likely highlight the point of view the group represents.

To be sure, not all of the problems I've enumerated are peculiar to a free press. However, before the contingent of American journalists heads home, perhaps they will reflect about how to get their own house in order, rather than insisting on fixing China's.

The author is a fellow at the Institute for Analytic Journalism. He formerly taught high school in the U.S. patrickmattimore1@yahoo.com

The article represents the author's views only. It does not represent opinions of People's Daily or People's Daily Online.