When
the Press Opposes Free Speech
Testing the logic of a blanket prohibition
Let’s try a thought experiment.
Suppose a Chronicle staffer were an ardent opponent of the war in Iraq. He believed it was morally irresponsible not to take a public stand. Let’s say he attended peace rallies, even engaged in non-violent civil disobedience that led to his arrest.
Such a person clearly has very strong feelings and they are likely to get stronger both by the actions undertaken and association with others of like mind.
Clearly, such a journalist would face a serious conflict between these strong attitudes and impartial reporting about the justness of this war.
Even if our hypothetical journalist were able to compartmentalize those beliefs and ask as tough questions of those on one side of the war issue as another, people who knew the journalist’s strong personal bias could be forgiven for fearing it would show up in print.
Whether the journalist’s strong opinions actually biased his reporting, or the public merely mistrusted it knowing those feelings, the newspaper that allowed such a conflict would be jeopardizing its public credibility. By allowing unrestricted freedom of political speech, it would undermine its journalistic mission.
What if the reporter isn’t covering
war-related issues?
But now suppose that instead of covering an issue directly related to the war, the same journalist writes about sports, education, science, real estate, wine, restaurants, or perhaps personal digital technology. Or suppose she is a copy editor—guiding other people’s reports through the perilous shoals of grammar, style and punctuation. Or suppose he is a copy clerk.
Would you trust a report about the Giants, or the college football draft, written by an opponent of the war with Iraq? Would you trust a comparison of a Mac and a PC written by such a journalist?
Does it make sense to deprive everyone in the newsroom of their freedom of political speech regardless of the degree of overlap between their feelings about this war and the topics they cover?
Ideologically cleansing the newsroom
Is such a sweeping policy likely to drive away from journalism those with civic passion?
If the Iraq war is the subject of prohibition today, will other public controversies be off limits across the newsroom tomorrow? Perhaps too strong an environmental sensitivity, issues of women’s choice and abortion, gay and lesbian rights?
Compromises are possible
There are examples of careful balancing of core rights the press could adopt as models. The United States Supreme Court, for example, routinely strikes down challenges to free speech as “overbroad”—prohibiting more freedom of expression than is necessary to accomplish legitimate social purposes.
Libel law specifically protects the right of news media, among others, to speak unpopular truths to power. To ensure robust political debate, the court has tipped the playing field against politicians and public persons, making it harder for them to punish the press, even when a report is factually wrong and injures the public person’s reputation.
One might hope the press itself would take similar care to forbid no more of its journalists’ rights as citizens than absolutely necessary to preserve its independence.
As the March 22 Chronicle put it, concluding its editorial: “The ability to disagree, especially on something as critical as whether initiating a war is in our nation’s best interest, is a measure of a healthy democracy. Regrettably, it’s under stress right now.”
Grade the News has asked Chronicle Managing Editor Robert Rosenthal to compose an argument for the Chronicle's policy change. It will be posted parallel to this commentary when it is received.
