The readings for this week paint a very grim picture of the current state of our journalistic freedoms at this moment in time. The thought that a government can act as the media’s de facto editor-in-chief is a problem for the future of journalism and the democratic status of our country. At the core of this issue as stated in the articles, I believe, is that “shared facts,” truths universally believed by citizens, are being deteriorated. The rhetoric from Trump describes half of our society as puppets, doomed to the evil matrix created by mainstream media, while his followers are fighting this corrupt “wokeism.”
The division in beliefs is therefore being further polarized by Trump’s attacks on media organizations. Many of our readings addressed Trump’s actions against PBS and NPR, highlighting the unprecedented power the President is using to control and censor journalism. The articles addressed the far-reaching impacts of these types of federal action, affecting news organizations across the country. While self-censorship is undoubtedly a major issue at play, I also believe that a subconscious type of individual censorship could become a problem. In news organizations controlled by the billionaires and Trumpies, reporters could be dissuaded from covering topics they believe will not be published or will not accurately reflect their views. I see this as a major concern, as reporters and organizations run the risk of tolerating this journalistically limiting trickle down.
Another interesting aspect of Trump’s actions is the phrasing of his justification. In the official statement released by the White House regarding the government funding for news organizations, “bias” is the sole reason stated for the cuts. If a political spectrum truly does exist, how could we as a society possibly determine an unbiased viewpoint on any issue? Is the middle most belief the most unbiased? I find this reasoning entirely unacceptable, as the administration does not attempt to explain what unbiased reporting is, and their actions merely indicate that journalism supporting the President will be supported.
Lastly, I do think the issue of publishing information about immigration raids is an interesting topic, as I can see a real debate with valid arguments on both sides of the issue. As a writer for the Daily Princetonian, I would be hesitant to write an article breaking the news that our star quarterback has a secret knee injury hours before a game. My organization is not beholden to the University in any way, yet I still have a vested interest in Princeton. Regardless of reporters’ individual beliefs on the raids, we still have a vested interest in democracy and allowing its continuation. This issue becomes more complicated when the realities of the situation in our country are factored into the situation, such as the mishaps with wrongful deportations. At the core, though, I would argue that allowing other situations to cause a change in reporting standards is signaling that the country’s democracy has deteriorated.
I chose an article from Fox News for my additional piece to discuss the differences in shared facts: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bozell-graham-trump-successfully-defunds-npr-pbs-getting-started
