Abstract
Journalists need to stand up and shout about why media freedom matters, New York Times lawyer
David E. McCraw, the New York Times deputy general counsel, is all over this subject – and not only because he knows what it feels like when the leader of your country starts trying to call out the work you do as traitorous.
This is a favourite tactic of authoritarians the world over, not just US President Donald Trump.
McCraw has worked on freedom of expression projects in Kuwait, Russia, Yemen, Montenegro and Bahrain, so he knows what the risks are for the whole world when the US president starts slowly spelling out his contempt for the media.
In the nearly two years since he started writing his book, Truth in Our Times: Inside the Fight for Press Freedom in the Age of Alternative Facts, the lawyer has seen the world slide further down a precipice where leaders of countries tip further and further in their contempt for journalists.
McCraw said: “[When] I began writing this book in the very early parts of 2018, I was seeing how much authoritarian governments were mimicking the language that we were hearing from the Trump administration.”
And he is aware things have become considerably worse. “It did not seem as compelling at that moment as it does now,” he said.
“The pushback against press freedom around the world has gained new life over the course of the past two years.”
His career is high level and impressive. He is at the forefront of dealing with freedom of information litigation (he sued President Barack Obama’s administration more than 25 times for withholding information and forced the disclosure of secret documents on a range of topics including CIA drone strikes in Yemen) and heads up the New York Times crisis response when its journalists get kidnapped.
In October 2016, a letter McCraw wrote to Trump’s lawyer defending the paper’s right to publish a story about two women who claimed to have been groped by Trump became one of the lasting artefacts of the presidential campaign. The letter was viewed and shared by millions of readers as it went viral in the heat of the presidential race.
He describes these times as “disquieting” and feels it is time for the media to come together.
“The physical violence against journalists, interfering physically with their ability to cover stories, all of those things have now become a much greater problem,” he said.
While he was writing the book, a gunman attacked the Capital Gazette newspaper in Maryland, killing five people, yet the White House press secretary declined to say that the press was not the enemy of the people.
What have been the other symbols of a dark period for media freedom?
“We were truly astonished with President Trump standing with [Brazil’s President Jair] Bolsonaro and applauding him for using the term ‘fake news’ on the steps of The White House. For me that was a very dark moment for press freedom worldwide.”
Where once the rest of the world might have worried about the implications for their foreign policy and negotiations with the USA if they started locking up their journalists, it is clear that, following the indications from the Trump White House, this is not an issue anymore. The gloves are off everywhere.
And when macho leaders flex their muscles against the media they often do so with the aim of taking the public with them.
The Boston Globe references their editorial defence of press freedom and a rebuke of President Donald Trump
CREDIT: Brian Snyder/Reuters
McCraw worries about a Hill-Harris poll in 2019 that showed 33% of US citizens believed that the press was the “enemy of the people”, and an earlier Ipsos Mori poll that found that 26% thought the president should have the power to close down news organisations if they misbehaved.
He said: “The idea that a quarter of US citizens feel that the president should have the power to punish the press is chilling. Rather than talk about how we can make press organisations better, they feel the press has failed them – they are endorsing the idea of the president using some kind of authoritarian measure to shut them down.
“Elections sometimes come up with very, very bad results and courts make silly decisions, but our response is not ‘let’s stop having elections’ or ‘stop having courts’ – our response to that is to make institutions stronger.”
But McCraw, whose CV also includes teaching at Harvard Law School, believes that the media as a whole can do more to combat some of those verbal zingers being sent their way. “We in the press have more power than we think to change those numbers.”
He believes this has begun by talking about the value of press freedom and taking it out of partisan camps. “The discussion in the US has been too much centred on the idea that press freedom is something that the left wants and the right is against – that is a false dichotomy.”
The press, whatever its politics, needs to be able to speak out for media freedom and its place in a democracy, he adds.
“We are competitors. There is no question that the NYT is a competitor to the Wall Street Journal, to other publishers and broadcasters, but there are times when we have a common interest and we should be willing to come together.”
And then there’s this idea being pushed by those in power that wish the public to distrust the news and that the media is one big elite that never moves out of New York City. Again, this is when talking more about how journalism works – and who does the work – can be helpful.
He says that the NYT recently published the home towns of everybody covering the presidential campaign on its behalf to show that its reporters hailed from everywhere.
“It showed that these were not people that had grown up clustered together in an ultra-liberal precinct on the Upper East Side of Manhattan: they were from all over the country, they came with different backgrounds.
“That’s a very small step to help our readers understand that we represent America. You may not like what we do sometimes, but we are part of the fabric of the country.”
He also feels that opening up some of the mystique of journalism brings the public closer.
“One thing we are seeing is simply greater transparency about how journalism gets done,” he said. “I do think understanding that is important.”
These things shed light on what is happening in newsrooms, but he says there are also shifts within news organisations themselves.
Where journalists and news media directors didn’t previously see it as their job to speak up for the principles of freedom of speech and the media, the times are changing.
In September 2019, the NYT’s publisher, AG Sulzberger, made a speech at Brown University, Rhode Island, on the importance of this. He spoke of how the NYT prepared its reporters for tough assignments, saying: “But we’ve long taken comfort in knowing that in addition to all our own preparations and all our own safeguards, there has always been another, critical safety net: the United States government, the world’s greatest champion of the free press. Over the last few years, however, something has changed.
“Around the globe, a relentless campaign is targeting journalists because of the fundamental role they play in ensuring a free and informed society.
“And, perhaps most troubling, the seeds of this campaign were planted right here, in a country that has long prided itself on being the fiercest defender of free expression and a free press.”
McCraw pointed out: “There was a time, I think, when people in Sulzberger’s position did not want to look like they were adversaries against the president. We want to be seen as being honest brokers of information about the administration, but we have come to the point when that kind of silence and that kind of reticence is no longer fair or useful.”
There is a risk for journalists in the USA and elsewhere, he believes, in not being willing to speak up about this vital element of freedom.
“The risk goes to the very heart of why we have supported free expression for so long – that is we become vulnerable to inequity, we become vulnerable to the worse sort of leadership, we become vulnerable to governments that are corrupt.”
CREDIT: zipperbits/iStock
Trumped on the Macho Front?
How does President Donald Trump measure up against former US heads of state when it comes to his macho man image? JAN FOX wields the measuring tape
His “tough guy” rhetoric includes praising Republican congressman Greg Gianforte when he body-slammed a reporter, saying: “He’s my guy.”
The president also claimed he would stop a school shooting “even if I didn’t have a weapon”. And when Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in November, Trump commented that the USA did not ask the Russians about flying over their controlled area – they told them they were going in. Even his hair defies nature. This tough guy is in charge.
But then there’s the perma-tan, the gold jewellery, the obsession with his appearance and, of course, hiding behind Twitter to insult his enemies rather than calling them out for a real duel. So just how macho is this man? How does the 45th president measure up on the machometer against his White House predecessors? And who else flexed their presidential muscles to threaten freedom of expression?
He made one of the biggest transgressions against freedom of expression with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which limited freedom of speech generally, limited the press and was anti-immigrant. “This was a huge stain on the nation,” said Purdy.
THE VERDICT
“Trump is a tough talker and likes to use profanity to try to be tough, but we associate macho with physical prowess and bravery and Trump doesn’t have those. He’s more of a bully than a macho man,” said Purdy. “He wants to be macho – for example, he loves the military – but he’s not. He got out of serving in the military by perhaps questionable methods, so he doesn’t measure up in those terms.
“He hides behind Twitter to hit back because he’s a bully but also somewhat of a coward.”
Would Teddy Roosevelt have used Twitter? “Maybe, but he was comfortable going face-to-face with people, which Trump is not.”
California-based anthropologist Derek Milne said: “A lot of macho is bravado, and Trump is right up there in my book. We have a gun-slinger history in America, so violence and patriarchy are part of American culture, which is why we are predisposed to macho leaders. It’s framed like it’s about safety – a threat to the USA from outside or from within – and Trump really plays that aspect up.”
Who’s the biggest threat to freedom of expression? For Purdy, it’s a given: “I’d say Adams and Trump are neck-and-neck in attacking freedom of expression, but I think perhaps Trump is worse. He’s called the press the enemy of the people. He’s used the power of his office to squash officials from being able to testify even when there’s a subpoena. He’s very strategic with the way he uses the media, which is very dangerous for the core principles of democracy.”