The 1st Amendment: Exploring the Freedom of the Press

Transcript

WEBVTT

00:00:00.221 --> 00:00:04.392
Yeah, this viewpoint is the idea that the press is so vitally important to checking our government.

00:00:04.392 --> 00:00:08.430
Throw it back to the beginning of the episode when we talked about why the founders even included this clause.

00:00:08.430 --> 00:00:14.332
We, the people, know what the government is doing because reporters ask questions, they investigate, they track bills, etc.

00:00:14.332 --> 00:00:18.830
Ultimately, without reporters, who would be keeping track of what the government is doing?

00:00:18.830 --> 00:00:20.286
Who would tell the people about it?

00:00:20.286 --> 00:00:31.381
About it?

00:00:31.381 --> 00:00:33.569
Welcome back to the United she Stands podcast, the show that brings kindness and women into politics.

00:00:33.588 --> 00:00:42.741
I'm Ashley and I'm Sarah, and we're two women from Ohio who are here to become more educated about American politics and build a community so we can all get involved and make an impact together.

00:00:43.344 --> 00:00:45.591
We hope we'll inspire and empower you along the way.

00:00:45.591 --> 00:01:03.231
Hello and welcome back to another episode of the United she Stands podcast.

00:01:03.231 --> 00:01:09.105
We have yet another episode for you today on the First Amendment, specifically all about freedom of the press.

00:01:09.105 --> 00:01:16.308
We have already covered other First Amendment freedoms religion and speech in prior episodes, so if you missed those, go back and go ahead and give them a listen.

00:01:16.308 --> 00:01:21.072
But before we dive into it today, sarah, what are we drinking?

00:01:21.780 --> 00:01:25.070
Well, a little behind the scenes info for y'all.

00:01:25.070 --> 00:01:32.531
It is 10 am on a Saturday morning, so we are actually drinking some nice iced vanilla lattes.

00:01:32.531 --> 00:01:41.381
We are, but I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to a beer right now, but this is my first coffee of the day, so that needs to happen first.

00:01:41.381 --> 00:01:50.322
Okay, so let's start with a bit of a recap, in case you missed the previous episodes on the First Amendment or in case you just need a refresher, because there's a lot of information.

00:01:50.322 --> 00:01:55.703
So bear with us for the next few minutes if you've already heard this before and remember everything we already told you.

00:01:56.344 --> 00:02:04.373
So the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, which, as a reminder, is the first 10 amendments in our US Constitution.

00:02:04.373 --> 00:02:21.957
The First Amendment states 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.

00:02:21.957 --> 00:02:28.568
That one sentence right there gives us five freedoms Religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition.

00:02:28.568 --> 00:02:33.127
Even though this is just one sentence, there's so much that goes into each clause of that sentence.

00:02:33.127 --> 00:02:41.242
So today we're here to specifically break down the freedom of the press clause for you and to talk about the interpretation from the courts of this amendment over the years.

00:02:41.804 --> 00:02:54.390
But before we do that, we did come up with a fun mnemonic phrase in our very first First Amendment episode on the freedom of religion, so that we could remember and help you, the listener, remember, the five freedoms we have protected by the First Amendment.

00:02:54.390 --> 00:03:02.801
Okay so, sarah Popquiz, can you name the five freedoms without looking at our document, or can you remember the mnemonic phrase we made up?

00:03:03.043 --> 00:03:07.768
I think I can remember the phrase Raise a stein pour a pint.

00:03:07.768 --> 00:03:11.171
So religion speech.

00:03:11.171 --> 00:03:14.695
Press assembly petition.

00:03:16.001 --> 00:03:16.983
Yeah, she didn't look guys.

00:03:16.983 --> 00:03:17.743
We're in the same room today.

00:03:17.743 --> 00:03:19.326
Sarah did not look at the screen.

00:03:19.366 --> 00:03:20.628
I'm not a cheater.

00:03:21.189 --> 00:03:21.389
Yeah.

00:03:21.389 --> 00:03:23.894
So if you missed it before, raise steins pour a pint.

00:03:23.894 --> 00:03:26.181
I mean, come on, that's pretty good, that is so good.

00:03:26.282 --> 00:03:30.050
I'm like I'm still just beyond impressed by that, yeah.

00:03:30.551 --> 00:03:32.682
So you can always remember your five freedoms.

00:03:32.682 --> 00:03:44.205
All right, so moving on and getting into some new content for those who did catch the past episodes, as we said, today we're going to break down just one of those five freedoms from the First Amendment, and that is the freedom of the press.

00:03:44.205 --> 00:03:52.669
There's so much that goes into interpreting our laws as we kind of know by now, and the press clause from the First Amendment is really no exception, so let's dive in, all right.

00:03:52.971 --> 00:03:57.354
So, specifically in the First Amendment there's this tiny little clause that comes after the religion and it's called the First Amendment and it's a little bit of a different thing.

00:03:57.354 --> 00:04:00.600
It's a little speech clauses and its states or of the press.

00:04:00.600 --> 00:04:04.368
So Congress shall make no law abridging the press.

00:04:04.368 --> 00:04:05.680
And that tiny clause.

00:04:05.680 --> 00:04:08.534
Well, it's a really important protection for our democracy.

00:04:08.534 --> 00:04:12.967
But, like many things in our constitution, it's a bit vague and leaves room for interpretation.

00:04:12.967 --> 00:04:14.938
So let's get into it, shall we.

00:04:15.400 --> 00:04:16.101
We shall.

00:04:16.101 --> 00:04:19.916
The First Amendment guarantees a free press, but what does that really mean?

00:04:19.916 --> 00:04:31.255
Well, basically, it's the right to gather information and report news or circulate opinions without censorship from the government, and we really need to start back at why the founders included this clause specifically in the First Amendment.

00:04:31.255 --> 00:04:38.086
The founders realized that the government basically needed a watchdog, and in this case, that watchdog was a free press with protections from the Constitution.

00:04:38.086 --> 00:04:42.786
They believed a free press to be one of the components essential to creating a free, democratic nation.

00:04:42.786 --> 00:04:50.959
The idea was that the media could have more autonomy to write things about people in the government that those people in the government might not like, but ultimately, the press would be protected.

00:04:50.959 --> 00:04:57.362
This would enable the press to say what needed to be said to ensure the public had information that it might need to make informed decisions.

00:04:58.004 --> 00:05:06.244
At the time the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, the Free Press Clause addressed newspapers and there were really no limits on what the press could say.

00:05:06.244 --> 00:05:12.148
The Free Press Clause today applies to all forms of news gathering and reporting, no matter the medium.

00:05:12.148 --> 00:05:26.526
So television, radio and online journalists are all protected, like many things in our Constitution, the meaning of the Free Press Clause, of the First Amendment that we know today, largely emerged from pivotal US Supreme Court decisions throughout the 20th century.

00:05:26.526 --> 00:05:41.701
Like we discussed in the Freedom of Speech episode, the First Amendment wasn't thought to apply to the states until the 1925 case Gitlow v New York, in which the US Supreme Court found that the freedoms of press and speech applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

00:05:42.081 --> 00:05:44.586
So we're going to walk through a few additional key decisions here.

00:05:44.586 --> 00:05:48.401
Some of these we'll kind of briefly touch on and some we're going to give a bit more attention to.

00:05:48.401 --> 00:05:51.740
The first case is near v, Minnesota in 1931.

00:05:51.740 --> 00:05:56.156
This case established a judicial precedent for the no prior restraint doctrine.

00:05:56.156 --> 00:06:02.319
Prior restraint is a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials and prevent their publication.

00:06:02.319 --> 00:06:05.625
So this case ensures you are free to publish, print etc.

00:06:05.625 --> 00:06:07.615
Without government review or approval.

00:06:08.177 --> 00:06:12.685
The second case is Grishin v American Press Co in 1936.

00:06:12.685 --> 00:06:19.487
In this case, the court struck down a license tax that applied differently to newspapers with large circulation in Louisiana.

00:06:19.487 --> 00:06:27.550
Basically, a law was passed to tax the most distributed papers differently, and these papers one specifically had been criticizing politicians.

00:06:27.550 --> 00:06:40.805
The court agreed that newspapers should not be immune from any of the ordinary forms of taxation for support of the government, but they then concluded that the tax in this case interfered with the role of the press as a vital source of public information.

00:06:41.488 --> 00:06:47.225
The third case, and one we're going to go into a bit more detail on, is New York Times co v Sullivan in 1964.

00:06:47.225 --> 00:06:51.971
In this case, the Supreme Court reversed a libel damages judgment against the New York Times.

00:06:51.971 --> 00:07:03.139
The decision established the important principle that the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press may protect libelous words about a public official in order to foster vigorous debate about government and public affairs.

00:07:03.139 --> 00:07:07.899
This landmark decision constitutionalized libel law and arguably saved the civil rights movement.

00:07:07.899 --> 00:07:09.427
So let's dive a bit deeper.

00:07:09.949 --> 00:07:12.982
Let's start with defining libel, because it's about to come up.

00:07:12.982 --> 00:07:17.697
Quite often, Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.

00:07:17.697 --> 00:07:19.702
So back to the case now.

00:07:19.702 --> 00:07:39.043
New York Times co v Sullivan began as a lawsuit against the newspaper for mistakes in a full-page civil rights fundraising editorial advertisement in 1960, and it was titled Heed their Rising Voices, the advertisement which protested the way Alabama law enforcement treated Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

00:07:39.043 --> 00:07:47.531
The lawsuit was filed by LB Sullivan, an elected city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, whose duties included supervision of the local police.

00:07:47.531 --> 00:07:54.476
Under Alabama law, Sullivan only needed to prove that there were mistakes in the ad and that they likely harmed his reputation.

00:07:54.476 --> 00:07:59.928
A jury awarded him $500,000 in damages, which was an enormous sum at the time.

00:07:59.928 --> 00:08:10.209
And, fun fact, we used an inflation calculator for this $500,000 in damages back then and what it would be today just a little over $5 million.

00:08:10.209 --> 00:08:12.904
So yeah, that was a lot of money at the time.

00:08:13.466 --> 00:08:13.708
All right.

00:08:13.708 --> 00:08:17.240
So the Supreme Court unanimously reversed and dismissed the damage award.

00:08:17.240 --> 00:08:20.047
Writing for the majority Justin William J Brennan Jr.

00:08:20.047 --> 00:08:31.130
Opinion that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and said that vehement criticism and even mistakes were part of the price a democratic society must pay for freedom.

00:08:31.130 --> 00:08:43.990
And if you're wondering what the advertisement had gotten wrong, it incorrectly stated the number of times Martin Luther King Jr had been arrested in Alabama, which was four times instead of seven, as well as some of the details of the police actions at Alabama State College.

00:08:44.394 --> 00:08:48.066
Yeah, I'd say there's a difference between four and seven times Like OK.

00:08:48.066 --> 00:09:04.058
To protect open discourse, the court adopted the actual malice test, meaning that no public official could win damages for libel without proving that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

00:09:04.058 --> 00:09:17.005
The court intended for this to be a very high standard, one that public officials would have a hard time satisfying, and one that, if were found true, was because conduct by the news media went beyond just negligence or carelessness.

00:09:17.567 --> 00:09:27.227
After setting the new high standard, the court then established another important principle by immediately applying the new test to the facts of the case and declaring that there was insufficient evidence of actual malice.

00:09:27.227 --> 00:09:35.644
Usually, when the Supreme Court announces a new legal rule, the justices will send a case back to the lower courts to apply the new rule to the particular facts of that case.

00:09:35.644 --> 00:09:48.894
The court established the principle of de novo review for free speech cases, meaning that the Supreme Court will use its new rule to determine itself how legal principles apply to the facts of the case, versus letting a lower court decide.

00:09:49.235 --> 00:10:00.580
Prior to Sullivan, libel and defamation were entirely matters of state law, and the rules on when individuals could recover damages for injuries to their reputations varied widely, aka state by state.

00:10:00.580 --> 00:10:04.557
I'm sure we're surprised Sullivan changed all this in 1964.

00:10:04.557 --> 00:10:11.323
The Supreme Court transformed the field of libel law from one governed by the laws of the states to one determined by the First Amendment.

00:10:11.806 --> 00:10:21.501
In subsequent rulings, the court vastly expanded the protection for the news media to apply not just to lawsuits by public officials but also to claims by public figures, meaning people in the news or public eye.

00:10:21.501 --> 00:10:39.785
At the end of the day, all this to say, the media can report false information as long as the information was not distributed with actual malice, aka false information being reported out has to be an honest mistake or, essentially, when it was reported there was no intent to libel, meaning there was no intent to use a false statement to damage someone's reputation.

00:10:40.556 --> 00:10:46.705
Now, before moving on from this case, let's talk about the why behind the ruling a bit more specifically the intent piece.

00:10:46.705 --> 00:10:52.357
Basically, the Supreme Court recognized here that the press isn't always going to get it right and said that's okay.

00:10:52.357 --> 00:10:55.028
You could ask why are they giving this okay, though?

00:10:55.630 --> 00:11:03.765
Well, some of this recognition from the court is that with the news you're trying to get the information as correctly as you can in a very tight time frame, and the courts recognize this.

00:11:03.765 --> 00:11:13.511
In 1964, when this ruling was made, they were putting out an addition, for example, you know, the next morning, so if something came up that day, journalists maybe had a couple hours in some situations to get it published.

00:11:13.511 --> 00:11:26.168
Fast forward to today and oftentimes journalists, reporters, people, have even less time sometimes 15 minutes to report news and the odds are that they just might not always get it right, especially breaking news and as things are developing.

00:11:26.168 --> 00:11:37.017
So the courts were trying to recognize that the time pressure inherent in reporting the news may mean that sometimes mistakes will get made, but unless they're made with intent or with malice, it doesn't rise to the level of libel.

00:11:37.618 --> 00:11:44.606
Okay, that was a big one right there, but now we're moving on to the Richmond Newspapers Incorporated v Virginia from 1980.

00:11:44.606 --> 00:11:50.625
In this case, the court affirmed a First Amendment right for both the public and the press to attend criminal trials.

00:11:50.625 --> 00:12:06.369
After a series of mistrials, a criminal defendant on trial for murder in Virginia had requested and the prosecution had not opposed closing the courtroom doors to the public, but the closure was opposed by reporters who argued that the public had a First Amendment right to attend criminal trials.

00:12:06.369 --> 00:12:14.605
The court concluded that, absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal case must be open to the public.

00:12:15.135 --> 00:12:20.355
And the last case we're going to talk about today is New York Times Code v United States in 1971.

00:12:20.355 --> 00:12:22.259
And this is a big one, folks.

00:12:22.259 --> 00:12:25.741
Maybe you've heard of it, as it's also known as the Pentagon Papers case.

00:12:25.741 --> 00:12:43.563
In this case, the court reiterated the strong presumption against prior restraint of publication and rejected the Nixon's administration attempt to block the New York Times, the Washington Post and other papers from printing largely historical documents about US's involvement in Vietnam, even though the government cited national security concerns.

00:12:43.563 --> 00:12:45.167
So let's get into the details.

00:12:45.788 --> 00:12:46.268
All right.

00:12:46.268 --> 00:12:48.956
So for those who don't know, here's the background.

00:12:48.956 --> 00:12:57.207
In 1967, the then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, commissioned a secret government study on American involvement in Vietnam.

00:12:57.207 --> 00:13:03.307
When completed in 1968, the project had produced 47 volumes containing more than 7,000 pages.

00:13:03.307 --> 00:13:06.605
The work was labeled classified and only 15 copies were made.

00:13:06.605 --> 00:13:17.485
In early 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a Rand Corporation employee who had worked on the project, secretly made copies of the documents and passed them to reporters for the New York Times.

00:13:17.485 --> 00:13:25.789
On June 13, 1971, after several months of review, the Times began to publish these so-called Pentagon Papers.

00:13:25.789 --> 00:13:35.610
After the first three installments were published, the Nixon administration, citing national security concerns, obtained a restraining order barring further publication of the papers.

00:13:36.215 --> 00:13:43.780
When the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order, the Times made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case the next day.

00:13:43.801 --> 00:14:15.336
Wow, they cited prior cases, noting that any system of prior restraints comes to this court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity and that the government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.

00:14:15.336 --> 00:14:20.207
In this case, the government had failed to carry that burden and just to tie it back.

00:14:20.207 --> 00:14:24.605
For you, prior restraint was the doctrine we talked about in the near v Minnesota case.

00:14:25.047 --> 00:14:32.547
While the court did side with the press and this case is regarded as a win for first amendment rights, there was a lot of ambiguity on why the court ruled the way they did.

00:14:32.547 --> 00:14:39.000
When addressing the question of why the government had failed to carry its burden aka just if that doesn't make any sense, it means right.

00:14:39.000 --> 00:14:42.155
Their burden was proving that this was a national security concern.

00:14:42.717 --> 00:14:48.331
The court's majority splintered into six different concurring opinions with this ambiguity, many first amendment advocates had criticized the decision because, although this case supports, the majority splintered into six different concurring opinions.

00:14:48.331 --> 00:15:01.101
With this ambiguity, many First Amendment advocates had criticized the decision because, although this case supports the right to publish and in this case that's the Pentagon Papers, they argue its impact is diluted by the failure of the court to produce a clearly reasoned majority opinion.

00:15:01.101 --> 00:15:17.304
The court's fractured majority fails to say prior restraint may never be imposed, may be imposed only if the threat to national security can be proven to be real, serious and immediate, or may be imposed if Congress provides sufficient, clear authorization and guidelines.

00:15:17.907 --> 00:15:29.184
All of this to say, the decision is far from being a clear declaration of support for a free press, because it leaves open the possibility of government censorship without specifying the conditions under which the First Amendment might permit it.

00:15:29.184 --> 00:15:35.898
And just to drive this point home in case it wasn't clear, the courts did not say that the government couldn't limit the press for national security reasons.

00:15:35.898 --> 00:15:43.433
It just says, in this case they did not meet the burden of proof required to do so, Meaning if they could prove national security would be threatened.

00:15:43.433 --> 00:15:45.457
In certain scenarios the government could limit the press.

00:15:45.958 --> 00:15:52.542
And that wraps up the court cases we're going to discuss specifically, but let's dive into what some of this means for private citizens.

00:15:52.542 --> 00:16:00.639
So if you remember in Sullivan, the case that established actual malice, this case dealt with public figures and the people who place themselves in the public eye.

00:16:00.639 --> 00:16:02.548
But what does that mean for private citizens?

00:16:02.548 --> 00:16:06.341
What has the court said about whether the press can pry into a private life?

00:16:06.942 --> 00:16:18.647
Well, the courts have recognized several different types or groups of people when it comes to libel cases, and one is the public figure that we've talked about, and those are people like politicians the president of the United States, my girl, tay Tay Swift.

00:16:19.195 --> 00:16:20.903
Who should be the president of the United States?

00:16:21.316 --> 00:16:23.364
Yeah, can we make that a thing For real though?

00:16:23.364 --> 00:16:27.163
Anyway, these are the people that you just recognize, right?

00:16:27.163 --> 00:16:32.139
They're public, they're in the public eye, and those people have to hit the actual malice standard, like we discussed.

00:16:32.139 --> 00:16:34.880
But then there are private figures, like the average citizen.

00:16:34.880 --> 00:16:36.142
Kind of a lousy job of reporting the story.

00:16:36.142 --> 00:16:51.384
Did they not do their due diligence to ensure accuracy, etc.

00:16:51.384 --> 00:17:00.970
In that case, if you're a private citizen the information was false, it did damage to your reputation and the press was negligent then you're probably going to be successful in a libel case.

00:17:01.754 --> 00:17:04.296
Now let's talk specifically about the press First.

00:17:04.296 --> 00:17:06.584
What exactly are we talking about when we say the press?

00:17:06.584 --> 00:17:14.886
We took this definition from a Civics 101 episode on press freedom because it was the best definition we could find.

00:17:14.886 --> 00:17:19.946
Hannah from that show explains the press as being hard to define these days, in part because anyone can publish or broadcast anything online.

00:17:19.946 --> 00:17:26.183
But ideally, the press are people who seek out, research and verify the truth and then share that truth with others.

00:17:26.183 --> 00:17:37.143
So think people who work for newspapers, radio stations, magazines, television networks, people who learn as much as possible about a subject and then pass all that information on to news consumers.

00:17:37.143 --> 00:17:40.739
News consumers in this case are readers, listeners, etc.

00:17:40.739 --> 00:17:44.548
So specifically for us in regards to this topic, it's the American people.

00:17:45.035 --> 00:17:50.432
And something here to note that I think everyone should know is that you are able to publish, and probably do publish regularly.

00:17:50.432 --> 00:18:03.080
So you, a normal private citizen, in some ways act as and can be held responsible for being quote, unquote the press, your Facebook, instagram, tiktok, youtube, whatever social media account you prefer that is a platform where you are publishing something.

00:18:03.080 --> 00:18:05.616
This is why the press is so hard to define these days.

00:18:05.616 --> 00:18:11.628
So if you make a post with false information that causes damage to someone's reputation, you can be held liable for it.

00:18:11.628 --> 00:18:12.395
That's right.

00:18:12.395 --> 00:18:16.316
You, the poster, not the social media platform, would be the one that's held liable.

00:18:16.316 --> 00:18:22.056
But you're glad you listened to this episode so far, yeah, yeah, we're big PSA for everyone.

00:18:22.095 --> 00:18:24.038
Yeah, no making up rumors about your neighbors.

00:18:24.038 --> 00:18:26.200
No blasting someone on social media with fake information.

00:18:26.200 --> 00:18:26.641
Okay, guys.

00:18:28.362 --> 00:18:30.263
Yep, okay, great advice, ash, thank you.

00:18:30.263 --> 00:18:32.227
So back to the press itself.

00:18:32.227 --> 00:18:36.510
So again, in this case that's meaning the actual news organizations and journalists.

00:18:36.510 --> 00:18:48.865
We just want to briefly touch on the fact that we talked about the rights the First Amendment protects for them and even gave you a definition of the press, but we did not talk about the obligation and responsibility they have to our society To do this.

00:18:48.865 --> 00:18:51.090
Let's go back to the Pentagon Papers case for a minute.

00:18:51.090 --> 00:18:59.881
I know we talked about how this ruling was pretty ambiguous, but Justice Hugo L Black's opinion argued that the press was to serve the governed, not the governors.

00:18:59.881 --> 00:19:05.800
The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the government.

00:19:05.800 --> 00:19:12.121
The press was protected so that it could bear the secrets of the government and inform the people, and this viewpoint is important.

00:19:12.714 --> 00:19:16.886
Yeah, this viewpoint is the idea that the press is so vitally important to checking our government.

00:19:16.886 --> 00:19:20.925
Throw it back to the beginning of the episode when we talked about why the founders even included this clause.

00:19:20.925 --> 00:19:27.106
We, the people, know what the government is doing because reporters ask questions, they investigate, they track bills, etc.

00:19:27.106 --> 00:19:30.693
Ultimately, without reporters, they investigate, they track bills, etc.

00:19:30.693 --> 00:19:33.762
Ultimately, without reporters, who would be keeping track of what the government is doing?

00:19:33.762 --> 00:19:34.507
Who would tell the people about it?

00:19:34.507 --> 00:19:36.556
When you look at it like that, it's pretty easy to see the responsibility they have.

00:19:36.556 --> 00:19:47.644
We, as a free society, depend on the press and we have this idea that they have this responsibility to our society and this leads us to the Hutchins Commission, whose official name was the Commission of Freedom of the Press.

00:19:48.184 --> 00:19:53.310
To talk about this commission, we need to go back a bit in our history, to the 1940s, and set the stage.

00:19:53.310 --> 00:20:00.064
This commission met in the 1940s, when fascism was spreading around the world and folks were worried about the threat coming here to the US.

00:20:00.064 --> 00:20:03.128
This was also the time just after Franklin Roosevelt's death.

00:20:03.128 --> 00:20:10.507
Large and powerful publishers were unpopular with the public, and the public had a high degree of suspicions about their motivations and objectives.

00:20:10.507 --> 00:20:20.057
This was a time when the press had mushroomed into an unwieldy and powerful entity, and criticism of the power the press yielded was widespread.

00:20:20.057 --> 00:20:33.868
Critics argued that the media had monopolistic tendencies, that corporate owners were not concerned with the rights or interests of those unlike themselves, and that commercialization produced a corrupted culture as well as dangerously selfish politics.

00:20:33.868 --> 00:20:37.797
Does this sound?

00:20:37.817 --> 00:20:41.287
familiar, oh yeah, pretty relatable to today's press, yeah, mm-hmm.

00:20:41.287 --> 00:20:48.730
Well, with all this turmoil, the commission came to its conclusion in its final report called A Free and Responsible Press, which was published in 1947.

00:20:48.730 --> 00:20:59.566
At a high level, it says that the press plays an important role in the development and stability of modern society and, as such, it is imperative that a commitment of social responsibility be imposed on mass media.

00:20:59.566 --> 00:21:10.066
According to the social responsibility theory that came out of this, the press has a moral obligation to consider the overall needs of society when making journalistic decisions in order to produce the greatest good.

00:21:10.066 --> 00:21:16.347
Though there had been journalism codes of ethics for decades, the commission's report was considered landmarked by some scholars.

00:21:16.347 --> 00:21:20.595
They believed it was a pivotal reassertion of modern media's role in a democratic society.

00:21:21.076 --> 00:21:30.980
This social responsibility theory proposes that the media take it upon themselves to elevate society's standards, providing citizens with the information they need to govern themselves.

00:21:30.980 --> 00:21:33.857
It is in the best interest of the media to do this.

00:21:33.857 --> 00:21:39.237
If they do not, social theorists warn, the public will demand that the government regulate the media.

00:21:39.237 --> 00:21:45.041
So, with a system built on checks and balances, I feel like I got to ask who gets to check the media.

00:21:45.041 --> 00:21:46.166
Are they too powerful?

00:21:46.166 --> 00:21:48.395
Well, we don't really have an answer for that.

00:21:48.395 --> 00:21:59.115
Awesome, and what does that mean in an era of widespread protest, fake news and threats we're seeing to press freedom, like journalists being threatened, arrested or injured while reporting.

00:21:59.557 --> 00:22:02.884
Well, Sarah, we don't have an answer for that either, great great.

00:22:02.884 --> 00:22:13.325
What we can tell you is that the framers made the press powerful by giving it the freedom to print without requiring permission, and the press and the courts, over time, made the press even more powerful.

00:22:13.325 --> 00:22:16.905
Because of all this, their power grew and ultimately, so did their responsibility.

00:22:17.315 --> 00:22:18.721
And we'll leave you guys with that for today.

00:22:18.721 --> 00:22:30.826
We hope you better understand both the rights protected by the First Amendment in relation to the press, as well as how vitally important they are to our democracy and the amount of responsibility they have to our society.

00:22:30.826 --> 00:22:42.266
If you enjoyed this episode or found it valuable, we would so love and appreciate if you shared this with a friend who you think would also enjoy it and, if you're not already, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

00:22:42.266 --> 00:22:47.767
Thank you so so much for tuning in and we will absolutely positively catch you next time.

00:22:47.767 --> 00:22:56.564
Thanks See, ya Bye.

00:22:56.564 --> 00:22:59.548
Thanks for joining us for today's episode.

00:22:59.548 --> 00:23:01.089
We really appreciate the support.

00:23:05.675 --> 00:23:10.332
We would also really appreciate it if you hit the follow button and share this episode with anyone you think would enjoy it, and we'd like to thank Kevin Tanner, who edited this episode.

00:23:10.332 --> 00:23:38.804
If you're interested in learning more about him and his services, his website and Instagram are in the show notes With that we'll see you next week or if the press oh sorry, yep that makes a lot more sense in my head.

00:23:38.864 --> 00:23:46.779
I'm like my probably just makes more sense, or uh or uh, but yes, no, that's okay.

00:23:50.865 --> 00:23:54.989
And fun fact, we use an inflation calendar, so that 500,000.

00:23:54.989 --> 00:23:57.250
Calculator, what did I say?

00:23:57.250 --> 00:24:02.117
Calendar, I love when.

00:24:02.178 --> 00:24:03.242
I don't know what I said.

00:24:03.242 --> 00:24:04.601
That's like the worst part, because I do it too.

00:24:04.601 --> 00:24:06.355
I like where you're reading and I feel like your brain just like fills in a lot.

00:24:06.355 --> 00:24:07.082
Yes, oh my gosh.

00:24:07.063 --> 00:24:07.248
I know An it too.

00:24:07.248 --> 00:24:08.527
I like where you're reading and I feel like your brain just like fills in a lot.

00:24:08.527 --> 00:24:08.794
Yes, oh my gosh, I know.

00:24:08.915 --> 00:24:13.586
An inflation calendar, but I knew you would like this part because I was like I did like that money math for Sarah.

00:24:14.295 --> 00:24:16.544
Literally when I was reading it was an enormous sum.

00:24:16.544 --> 00:24:18.138
I was like I wonder what it would be this time.

00:24:18.138 --> 00:24:25.721
Okay, well, this commission meant.

00:24:33.255 --> 00:24:33.776
That's of that.

00:24:33.776 --> 00:24:34.797
This commission met meant, that's it.

00:24:34.797 --> 00:24:35.356
They got together.