I have been writing for many years for lots of different kinds of magazines, some online, some not. And I’ve written mostly about issues having to do with politics and the media, or just the media in its own right. I have long noted that while much conversation centers on the question of the free press, much less, until recently, has focused on freedom of speech itself.
It was my concern with free speech that led me to create the Media Institute in 1979 (from which I retired in 2017), along with its independent operation, Free Speech Week, now in its 19th year.
Most of us learn things and express things through words. Pretty much everything we know, we think about in words, even to ourselves. And so it’s terribly important, not just in terms of expression of our own points of view, but for the sake of general knowledge, that speech remain free.
In a democratic country, and especially a country like the United States, free speech is vital. We simply must be able to express, and discuss, ideas with which we disagree, even ideas that we regard as absurd, or vile, or hateful—in fact, especially those. What has been most alarming to me in recent years—and I began noticing this during the 2016 presidential campaign—is how widespread suppression has become, especially among people who are politically liberal. It’s truly alarming.
As I see it, freedom of speech is the most fundamental aspect of the First Amendment. Not everybody owns his own press (though more people do now, thanks to the internet), but everybody has a voice, and most can write and read. Freedom of speech is the most basic of our freedoms. And if it’s being jeopardized, as it is now, it’s up to us to confront that reality and reverse it.
People my age remember a time when we could sort out the difference between news reporting and pure commentary. And when the mainstream journalistic organizations understood the difference, too. Let me illustrate what I mean with a story.
In 1972, I coauthored an article for National Review called: “Is It True What They Say About the New York Times?” This was more than 50 years ago. The article wasn’t an opinion piece: it was a content analysis of news coverage of prominent issues in the New York Times. And the surprising result of our analysis—surprising even to us—was that the paper, on its news pages, was really quite objective. This contrasted with its editorial page, which clearly was not.
National Review took some hits for publishing this piece. Bill Buckley got lots of criticism, and so did I. In fact, I even got a death threat and wound up changing my phone number and un-listing it.
But in any case, what we found in analyzing the Times’s news coverage back then is clearly not the case now. No, I haven’t done a 2024 content analysis, but I think it’s pretty obvious to anyone who reads the Times today that its news coverage doesn’t remotely approach objectivity or fairness.
There is no comparison between 1972 and now, when it comes to the Paper of Record. In 2016, reporter Mika Rottenberg wrote a piece for the Times basically saying, you don’t have to be fair to Donald Trump, or objective in your coverage of him, because he says so many mean things. Since at least 2016, it’s been clear that objectivity has not been the guiding principle in legacy media. And that’s a terrible shame.
The question many have asked in response to all this is: What led to this erosion of free speech principles on the Left? Why doesn’t the Left want to debate ideas openly anymore?
I think that’s a question with multiple answers, depending on what area of the Left you’re considering. From a broad political perspective, in my view, the Left has never had a purely disinterested view of free speech. The Left is more concerned with its ideas and with the pursuit of power; if free speech aligns with those goals, then they’re in favor of free speech. If it does not, then they are not.
But I can speak best to the media aspect of the question. Some prominent ex-New York Times executives have said that the motive for the paper’s shift is because their revenue model has been broken by the internet and by things like podcasts and streaming media.
I think that’s true—and that it’s the most important reason for the shift. For the legacy media, it’s less about politics or ideology and more about money. It’s about trying to find a journalistic way forward.
This shift is not going to be reversed. It’s too late for the legacy media. They’re not going to be reformed. They’re not going to suddenly adopt an objective model. The only way that that would happen is if they’re sold.
You would have to replace not only the entire editorial staff, but more importantly, you’ve got to replace the people who own these companies, the people at the very top. Maybe if Elon Musk were to buy MSNBC, you would see MSNBC’s journalism change quite a lot. Otherwise, I wouldn’t expect much change if the same crew keeps running the show.
What irks me in all this is that with any other kind of business that’s misbehaving, the blame goes right up to the top. But that doesn’t seem to happen with the media. When people are unhappy with MSNBC, they focus their criticism on the writers or the reporters or the editors or the producers. But they should really be looking at the CEO of Comcast, which owns MSNBC and NBC and CNBC. If Comcast wanted to make changes, it would happen overnight. The same goes for the owners of CBS, ABC, and the New York Times.
Where we might see a change is at the Washington Post, where Jeff Bezos, in my judgment, seems to be getting religion, so to speak. Time will tell.
The good news? Regardless of how many legacy media organizations have disappointed us in recent years, there are lots of writers out there doing important work for free expression. And Americans are increasingly turning to these writers to get unvarnished viewpoints and honesty about what is happening in the country and around the world. Matt Taibbi is the second most widely prescribed author at Substack, for example. Podcaster Joe Rogan, of course, has attained an influence that would have been thought inconceivable just a few years ago; we saw Rogan’s power during the last election. In fact, I think Rogan has more influence now than the editorial page of the Washington Post. Let’s see if Bezos can do something about that.
I’ve had a long career and have devoted much of it to championing fre
Read Full Article »