Newspapers Across the Country Unite For Freedom of the Press

Today, August 16, 2018, over 300 newspapers across the country expressed - in separate editorials - why a free press is of critical importance to this country. Big City papers, small town papers, weeklies all joined in the call made by The Boston Globe to make today's editorials on this one topic. As I said at the beginning of the last post, I support newspapers. I like holding them, and folding the pages. There is no doubt that newspapers provide a great service to this country - from challenging abusive or corrupt government and businesses, to human interest stories, to sports, business and entertainment. Whether in print or online, it is how we find out what is happening in our communities, our state, our country and our world. In fact, the Los Angeles Times Sunday edition, during college football season, is my favorite paper - covering most of the Saturday games.

So, then why the big controversy and need to unite as one voice? In a word - Trump. The mainstream media feels that they are under attack with President Trump's frequent allegations of "fake news." Here is part of today's editorial from the Topeka Capital-Journal: "We're not separate from the public. We are the public. We live and work and play in Topeka and surrounding areas. We go to restaurants and send our children to school. We drive the same roads, see the same doctors. We're not the enemy of the people. We are the people." A similar sentiment was expressed in other papers' editorials. It sounds reasonable - but is it true?

We know that San Francisco is one of the most left-wing cities in the country. In 2013, only 8.6% of registered voters had registered as Republicans. Not terribly surprising. But Politico reported, based on data from Nate Silver, that in 2013 only 7% of journalists identified as Republican. In other words, the people that write the news are more left-wing than one of the most left-wing cities in the country. Does that make them just like the rest of us when it comes to reporting anything that may have a political aspect to it? Arthur O. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, wrote after the 2016 election: "Did Donald Trump's unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?" No, Mr. Sulzberger, I disagree. When the overwhelming number of your journalists are left-wing, when they adored Hillary Clinton, they simply were unable to see or understand the appeal of a Donald Trump. I would suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that he try bringing true diversity - diversity of opinion - to the Gray Lady.

The USA Today was too easy on themselves in today's editorial by Manny Garcia, their "standards" editor. Here is what he wrote: "Treat everyone with fairness, dignity and respect, especially our harshest critics. Always take the high road. Never twist the knife." Platitudes are nice, but when they are ignored, they are just that - platitudes. Take the high road? Would that be when the USA Today wrote "a president (referring to Trump) who would all but call Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a whore (he didn't) is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush." Is that how the USA Today treats everyone with dignity - especially the President of the United States? Is that the high road?

I do not recall the mainstream media being so distressed over the way President Obama and others in his Administration spoke about Fox News. Then White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this: "We're going to treat them (Fox News) the way we would treat an opponent. (Kind of like an enemy?) We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." Obama's political adviser, David Axelrod said that Fox is "not really a news station." Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gave the same talking point, opining that Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And here's Obama: Fox is "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world." Yet, the mainstream media was apoplectic when Trump would not call on CNN's Jim Acosta at a White House press briefing. I am trying to understand. Calling Fox "destructive" to our society and not a real news organization is acceptable, but calling out CNN and others for "fake news" is the end of our democracy?

Former President Obama was at it again earlier this year: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR." I cannot be 100% certain, but I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks more highly of NPR listeners than he does of the Fox News audience. And Obama said this: "One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don't share a common baseline of facts." I could not disagree more. As a man of the left, Obama ignores what truly separates us - values. I have discussed this lack of agreement on values for years. What were common American values shared by both sides are now held by one side only, Republicans/conservatives. Just a few examples. Freedom of speech? Only conservative speech is shut down. Capitalism? The left prefers socialism. Support for our laws and police? The Democrats want to abolish ICE, have open borders, and we know what Obama thought of the police. Respect for the flag? No comment needed. Support for one of our closest allies, Israel? Not by Democrats.

Not only does Obama not get it, but the above sentences reflect his continuing attack on conservatives, in his subtle way of mocking those who watch Fox News and disagree with him and the left. No doubt Trump, being a New Yorker, is much more direct and in-your-face, while Obama is much smoother and more elegant in his insults. It is easy to be fooled by the tact with which Obama mocks the right, but there is no mistaking Trump's insults for anything but. The other difference is that we, on the right, can see that Trump is divisive. The left remains unable to see the divisiveness of Obama.

So, were today's editorials defending the press necessary? They were more akin to a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Which is fine. But the platitudes, and the continuing inability to recognize their own political biases, will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, absent structural changes in the media.