The press tends to forget about the parts it finds inconvenient.
'Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
BY Jonah Goldberg
That’s the full text of the First Amendment. But (with apologies to the old Far Side
comic), this is what many in the press, academia, and government would
hear if you read it aloud: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, blah blah blah, or abridging the freedom of
the press, blah blah blah blah.”
Don’t get me wrong: The
revelation that the Obama Justice Department has gone to unprecedented
lengths to hamper or punish journalists is real news. DOJ trawlers
dropped a gill net over the Associated Press in the hope of landing a
single fish.
James Rosen, a reporter for Fox News (where I am a
contributor), is the first journalist ever treated as a criminal under
the Espionage Act. Other reporters at Fox — a news outlet the president
has spent years trying to delegitimize — have been investigated by the
DOJ as well.
The press can always be counted upon not just to
speak up for itself, but to lavish attention on itself. “We can’t help
that we’re so fascinating,” seems to be their unspoken mantra.
And
that’s fine. What’s not fine is the way so many in the press talk about
the First Amendment as if it’s their trade’s private license.
The problem is twofold. First, we all have a right to commit journalism under the First Amendment, whether it’s a New York Times reporter or some kid with an iPhone shooting video of a cop abusing someone.
I
understand that professional journalists are on the front lines of the
First Amendment’s free-press clause. But many elite outlets and
journalism schools foster a guild mentality that sees journalism as a
priestly caste deserving of special privileges. That’s why editorial
boards love campaign-finance restrictions: They don’t like editorial
competition from outside their ranks. Such elitism never made sense, but
it’s particularly idiotic at a moment when technology — Twitter,
Facebook, Tumblr, Vine, etc. — is democratizing political speech.
The
second problem is that the First Amendment is about more than the
press. In public discussion, First Amendment “experts” and “watchdogs”
are really scholars and activists specializing in the little slice
dedicated to the press. The Newseum, a gaudy palace in the nation’s
capital celebrating the news industry, ostentatiously reprints the
entire First Amendment on its facade. But if the curators of the Newseum
are much interested in the free exercise of religion or the rights of
the people peaceably to assemble, I’ve seen no evidence of it.
White
House press secretary and former journalist Jay Carney repeatedly
insists that the president is a “strong defender” and “firm believer” in
the First Amendment.
Even if that were true when it comes to
press freedoms — and that’s highly debatable — it’s absurd when it comes
to the rest of the First Amendment, with the small exception of the
“establishment of religion” clause. Deeply secular, the press is ever
watchful that the government might force someone to listen to a
Christian prayer.
But when it comes to the constitutional right to
exercise your faith freely, the press drops its love of the First
Amendment like a bag of dirt. The president’s health-care plan requires
religious institutions to violate their core beliefs. To the extent that
such concerns get coverage at all, it’s usually to lionize
“reproductive rights” activists in their battles against religious
zealots.
The IRS scandal and the DOJ’s assault on the press may be
two separate issues, but they are both about the First Amendment. The
groups the IRS discriminated against wanted to exert their First
Amendment rights to assemble, to petition government, and to speak
freely. Then–House speaker Nancy Pelosi dubbed angry voters at local
town-hall meetings “un-American.”
Some Americans wanted to
exercise their religious conscience. (James Madison, author of the First
Amendment, said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”) The
IRS told one pro-life group in Iowa that it had to promise — on pain of
perjury — not to protest Planned Parenthood. That is an outrageous
assault on the First Amendment as disgusting as anything aimed at the AP
or Fox News.
By all means, journalists should be outraged by the
president’s attitude toward the press. But if you’re going to call
yourself a defender of the First Amendment, please defend the whole
thing and not just the parts you make a living from.
— Jonah Goldberg is the author of The Tyranny of Clichés, now on sale in paperback. You can write to him at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment