Category Archives: Free Speech

Legacy Media Bends The Knee

The Right’s propaganda ecosystem is a huge problem. The spinelessness and cowardice of today’s legacy media is arguably worse.

A week or so ago, I argued that Trumpism has been aided by the inadequacy of our mainstream, “legacy” outlets. As I pointed out, there’s a reason that so many professional journalists have decamped to places like Substack– a reason why so many of us depend upon daily reports from reputable scholars like Heather Cox Richardson and Paul Krugman. My complaint was aimed at news reporting that “sanewashes” and normalizes behaviors that are objectively insane and abnormal, and as an example, I cited NBC’s report of the attack on California Senator Alex Padilla when he tried to ask Homeland Security’s Kristi Noem a question. Tom LLamas repeated Noem’s  assertion that the Senator had failed to identify himself–but made no mention of the fact that widely available video of the incident showed that Padilla had in fact done so. 

It wasn’t a “one-off.”

A couple of nights ago, NBC reported on the status of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” and rather than describing any of the truly horrific elements that explain public resistance to that legislation–its vast increase in the deficit or the millions who stand to lose healthcare– it reported that the bill would “reduce taxes,” and ignored the fact that those reductions would lopsidedly benefit the rich. 

NBC’s evident fear of incurring Trump’s wrath–its “compliance in advance”– pales, of course, in light of Paramount’s recent agreement to pay off the Mafia Don who occupies the Oval Office. Paramount has been in the process of an $8 billion merger with Skydance, for which it needs regulatory approval. The company settled a lawsuit with Trump that was so ridiculous that a first-year law student could have predicted it would have been laughed out of court. (Trump sued over what he claimed was unfair editing in a 60 Minutes interview of Kamala Harris.)

Paramount’s agreement to pay sixteen million dollars for dismissal of this laughable threat was widely–and accurately– seen as a kickback that will allow the merger to go forward. It was payment for a government approval–in other words, a bribe. CBS thus joined Disney (the parent company of ABC News) another part of the mainstream media that has bent the knee to our gangster President.

An opinion piece in the Washington Post summed up the betrayal of 60 Minutes and professional journalism.

After “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens in April announced his resignation, correspondent Scott Pelley said on air, “Our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

Honest journalism requires noting that Paramount’s leaders will never, ever hear the end of this abject decision. Nor should they. Much has been made in the recent past about attacks on the First Amendment, whether it’s the administration’s expulsion of the Associated Press from the White House press pool because it won’t swallow “Gulf of America” (a dispute that’s tied up in the courts); the targeting of student protesters for their speech; attacks on lawyers for their past work; or any number of actions seeking to snuff diversity language from the handbooks of corporate America.

There is ample case law establishing the right of editors to choose what material they publish and the manner in which they cover public issues and officials. “That very function — the one that happens many times a day at newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, networks, social media accounts, newsletters, whatever — is what Paramount failed to stick up for. It doesn’t deserve the likes of “60 Minutes.”

So here we are. We’re awash in propaganda from Fox News and its even more pernicious clones. And now we’ve learned that we can’t depend upon the so-called legacy media to set the record straight. Sometimes, it’s sins of omission–NBC failing to provide even rudimentary “both sides” coverage. Increasingly, it’s the betrayal of the very purpose of journalism, which is to inform as accurately and completely as possible.

It’s one thing to make honest mistakes. It’s another thing entirely to allow your bottom line to dictate your coverage. 

America’s experience under Trump has made one thing abundantly clear: American institutions are filled with self-protective cowards devoid of integrity. Those cowards dominate Congress and corporate boardrooms. The lesson of Paramount’s shameful capitulation to our gangster President’s blackmail is that corporate ownership of previously reliable media outlets  deprives We the People of news we can trust.

Unfortunately, without a fully and accurately informed electorate, democracy cannot exist.

Comments

Trump’s Phony War On Anti-Semitism

If there is any aspect of Donald Trump’s “character,” (note quotes) that has been amply documented, it has been his bigotries. (Extensive research has also confirmed that agreement with his racial animus is a characteristic of the vast majority of his supporters.) Trump’s own virulent anti-Semitism has been consistently displayed by his numerous reported comments and social media posts, and by his ongoing relationships with, and support from, various neo-Nazi figures.

So the administration’s assertion that its war on universities is an effort to stamp out anti-Semitism is ludicrous. What he wants to “stamp out” is intellectual inquiry and free speech. And plenty of Jewish academics are having none of it.

On Indiana University’s Bloomington campus, thirty-eight current and former Jewish professors delivered a letter to President Pamela Whitten, Provost Rahul Shrivastav and Board of Trustees Chair Quinn Buckner, urging them not to invoke their names or Jewish students’ names as justification for limiting free speech at IU.

Jeffrey C. Isaac, James H. Rudy professor of political science, signed the letter. Isaac said the group opposes antisemitism, and he’s been involved in activism against antisemitism.

Isaac said existing laws and the university’s regulations and policies already protect Jewish people from antisemitism. He’s never felt afraid on campus, and his students haven’t said they’re afraid either.

“I don’t mean to question every person who says they’re afraid,” Isaac said. “We need to listen to them. But that’s different than saying we need to shut down anything that disturbs them, and that’s what’s going on in this country now.”

In the letter, with which I entirely agree, the professors declined  to be used as “justification for any action that further limits academic autonomy or freedom of expression at IU.”

We, the undersigned, have all been “Jewish students on campus” somewhere. Our children have been Jewish students on campus somewhere. We teach Jewish students on this campus. And we—unlike Gov. Braun or Education Secretary Linda McMahon—have known antisemitism firsthand. But we also know that our identities, both as Jewish Americans and as public university employees, require respect for free speech and tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

Those values lead us to remind you that IU has a responsibility to stand firmly for freedom of speech.

In coming months, Secretary McMahon and Governor Braun will seek your compliance in enforcing their vaguely defined prohibitions against “antisemitic harassment and discrimination” from “radical organizations and individuals.” The lessons of last year’s overreaction to the protests on Dunn Meadow, withdrawal of Samia Halaby’s Eskenazi Museum retrospective, suspension of Prof. Abulkader Sinno, and imposition of an overbroad expressive activity policy are clear: censoring legal expression—even in the name of bringing us together—only tears us apart.

The letter concluded,

These are fraught times for universities and other American institutions asserting their commitments to the protection of the First Amendment. Still, we recall the words of Hillel: “If I am not for me, who will be for me? And when I am for myself alone, what am I?” This university’s best means to protect the well-being of all of its students will be to affirm its commitment to civil liberties and to protect its academic programs from political interference. We count on you to do so.

Although it remains to be seen, it is unlikely that President Whitten–a politically-connected appointee who has thus far survived several faculty votes of no confidence, and whose response to previous student protests has ranged from unsatisfactory to appalling–will defend civil liberties against the assaults by Trump and Braun. But those who signed the letter, and the many others of us who endorse its sentiments, have made it clear that they do not consent to be cynically used by the blatant hypocrisy of Rightwing partisans who have a long history of actual anti-Semitism. We recognize this ploy as an obvious and thinly-veiled smokescreen for their consistent assaults on basic American civil liberties.

We know our history, and its lessons.

And if there is one lesson Jews all over the world have learned the hard way, it is that–like all marginalized minorities–we can only thrive in an open society that respects the civil liberties and free speech rights of all citizens, whether we agree with them or not.

Comments

Why The ADL Is Wrong

Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, is an activist who participated in last year’s pro-Palestinian campus protests. He was arrested by U.S. immigration agents on March 8 as part of the Trump administration’s pledge to deport anti-Israel student activists. Khalil is of Palestinian descent; he grew up in Syria, and is a permanent resident of the United States. He is married to an American.

His arrest was hailed by some sectors of the American Jewish community, including the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that fights antisemitism. The ADL released a statement applauding the “swift and severe consequences for those who provide material support to foreign terrorists”–this, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Khalil provided such support.

Other Jews understand what the ADL does not– that “defending” Jews and other minorities requires support for an open society where individuals are free to voice any and all opinions, even those we may find offensive. Jews are far less safe when those in authority are free to punish people who express ideas with which they disagree. And that is clearly what this Trumpian assault on the First Amendment is all about. 

As Rolling Stone has reported,

The Trump administration has provided no evidence supporting a link between Khalil and Hamas — which is a U.S.-designated a foreign terrorist group — or documentation of Khalil advocating violence. Khalil has not been charged with any crime. Trump and his administration are nevertheless openly bragging that the activist was being forcibly deported and separated from his pregnant wife because of his pro-Palestinian advocacy, and that more arrests will follow.

As I’ve previously noted, the sudden concern over anti-Semitism being expressed by far-Right politicians is jarring to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the GOP fringe’s historic hatred. When Christian Nationalists suddenly express a desire to “protect” their Jewish neighbors, it’s not just disconcerting–it’s ominous. MAGA’s sudden, pious concerns over anti-Semitism are anything but good-faith. Large numbers of the prominent Republicans who have labeled campus protests “Leftist anti-Semitism” have, like Trump, mainstreamed anti-Jewish rhetoric for years.

And by the way– those pious folks claiming to “protect” us are evidently unable to distinguish between opposition to Israeli policy and anti-Semitism. Plenty of Jews–including the one who writes this blog–oppose Netanyahu and his horrific actions in Gaza. We also oppose the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil.

As an in-depth article in The Guardian documented, “Campus protest crackdowns claim to be about anti-Semitism – but they’re part of a rightwing plan.” The article acknowledged the legitimate discomfort of Jewish students on campus, but noted that it has been used to justify “a powerful attack on academic freedom and First Amendment rights that long predates the student encampments – part of a longstanding rightwing project to curb speech and reshape the public sphere.”

The arrest is a flagrant and unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. Trump’s version of the federal government is claiming the authority to deport people–to revoke their green cards– for the “crime” of advocating positions that the government opposes, actions that are very obviously intended to intimidate and chill speech on one side of a public debate.

Amy Pitalnick of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs–who identifies as a Zionist–understands why the ADL is on the wrong side of this debate. The New York Times quoted her as saying “Any Jew who thinks this is going to start and stop with a few Palestinian activists is fooling themselves, Our community should not be used as an excuse to upend democracy and the rule of law.”

This is not the first time the ADL has failed to understand that Jews ultimately depend for our safety and well-being on the  protection of an open society that honors and respects the civil liberties of all its citizens. 

There’s a great adage I once heard from Ira Glasser, who led the national ACLU for many years. It is particularly pertinent here: Poison gas is a great weapon–until the wind shifts.

The government that can shut down Mr. Khalil today can shut down the ADL tomorrow–and given the documented anti-Semitic background of Trump and his base, it wouldn’t take much of a wind shift. 

Comments

The Politics Of Lying

When I was teaching, Free Speech discussions would frequently evoke a question from students appalled by the massive amounts of disinformation enabled by the Internet and social media: “Can’t we at least outlaw lying?” I would have to explain that courts would have great difficulty determining the difference between what is a lie and what is a mistake, etc. The practical problems of such an effort would be insurmountable.

More to the point, the First Amendment rests on reliance upon the “marketplace of ideas.” Bad ideas and lies are to be countered by better ideas and facts. It is a theory that depends upon the participation of We the People.

It isn’t working very well right now, and I see no simple solutions. Neither does Bill Adair, who founded Politifact. In a recent essay for the Atlantic, he explored the failure of that fact-checking site to combat the firehose of propaganda and lies that  distort our political lives.

For American politicians, this is a golden age of lying. Social media allows them to spread mendacity with speed and efficiency, while supporters amplify any falsehood that serves their cause. When I launched PolitiFact in 2007, I thought we were going to raise the cost of lying. I didn’t expect to change people’s votes just by calling out candidates, but I was hopeful that our journalism would at least nudge them to be more truthful.

I was wrong. More than 15 years of fact-checking has done little or nothing to stem the flow of lies. I underestimated the strength of the partisan media on both sides, particularly conservative outlets, which relentlessly smeared our work. (A typical insult: “The fact-checkers are basically just a P.R. arm of the Democrats at this point.”) PolitiFact and other media organizations published thousands of checks, but as time went on, Republican representatives and voters alike ignored our journalism more and more, or dismissed it. Democrats sometimes did too, of course, but they were more often mindful of our work and occasionally issued corrections when they were caught in a falsehood.

After exploring some theories about why politicians lie–the calculus that they apparently apply to determine the ratio of risk to reward– Adair notes that today’s extreme political polarization encourages them to do little else.

Now that many politicians speak primarily to their supporters, lying has become both less dangerous and more rewarding. “They gain political favor or, ultimately, they gain election,” said Mike McCurry, who served as White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. As former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey told me, “It’s human nature to want to get a standing ovation.” Lies also provide easy ammunition for attacking opponents—no opposition research required. They “take points off the board for other candidates,” said Damon Circosta, a Democrat who recently served as the chair of North Carolina’s Board of Elections.

Adair notes that partisan media, especially on the right, fosters lying by degrading our shared sense of what’s real. These outlets expect politicians to repeat favored falsehoods as the price of admission. If you’re not willing to participate in the twisting of facts, you simply won’t get to speak to the echo chamber.

Tim Miller, a former Republican operative who left the party in 2020, pointed out that gerrymandering, particularly in red states, has made it so “most of the voters in your district are getting their information from Fox, conservative talk radio … and so you just have this whole bubble of protection around your lies in a way that wouldn’t have been true before, 15 years ago.”

Adair uses Mike Pence as an example of the way today’s political incentives change people. They had been neighbors when Pence was in Congress, and Adair saw him then as “a typical politician who would occasionally shade the truth.” When he was Indiana governor, Adair watched his lies grow. “By the time he became Donald Trump’s vice president, he was almost unrecognizable to me.”

The question, of course, is “what can we do?” Here are Adair’s closing paragraphs:

If politicians lie because they believe they’ll score more points than they’ll lose, we have to change the calculus. Tech and media companies need to create incentives for truth-telling and deterrents for lying. Platforms of all kinds could charge higher ad rates to candidates who have the worst records among fact-checkers. Television networks could take away candidates’ talking time during debates if they’re caught lying.

But these reforms will demand more than just benign corporate intervention. They’ll need broad, sustained public support. Voters may not be willing to place truthfulness over partisan preference in every case. But more will have to start caring about lies, even when their candidate is the culprit.

Amen.

Comments

No More Sun In The Sunshine State

When I taught the First Amendment, I sometimes shared what I called my “refrigerator theory” of free speech. I analogized bad ideas to those leftovers that migrate to the back of the fridge and begin to smell, and noted that–if those same leftovers had been placed in strong sunlight– they would be bleached of their ability to smell up the place.

The “marketplace of ideas” envisioned by the Founders was intended to ensure that ideas would be subjected to the strong sunlight of public debate, where they believed that bad ideas would lose their negative odors.

I thought about that (admittedly silly) analogy when I read that–ironically–the “Sunshine state” was trying to turn off the sunlight.

Hundreds of New College of Florida library books, including many on LGBTQ+ topics and religious studies, are headed to a landfill.

A dumpster in the parking lot of Jane Bancroft Cook Library on the campus of New College overflowed with books and collections from the now-defunct Gender and Diversity Center on Tuesday afternoon. Video captured in the afternoon showed a vehicle driving away with the books before students were notified. In the past, students were given an opportunity to purchase books that were leaving the college’s library collection.

This purging of disfavored ideas was part of Ron DeSantis’ continued assault on New College and its “liberal” ideas–an assault that has prompted the departure of over a quarter of its students and large numbers of its most respected faculty.

As usual, Heather Cox Richardson provided an excellent commentary on the situation.

The New College of Florida is in the news today for illustrating the logical progression of the idea that Republicans must protect the nation from those who would destroy it. The New College of Florida was at the center of Republican governor Ron DeSantis’s program to get rid of traditional academic freedom. He stripped the New College of its independence and replaced officials with Christian loyalists who tried to build a school modeled after those that Viktor Orbán’s loyalists took over in Hungary. New College officials painted over student murals celebrating diversity, suppressed student support for civil rights, and voted to eliminate the diversity, equity, and inclusion office and the gender studies program. Faculty fled the New College, and more than a quarter of the students dropped out. To keep its numbers up, the school dropped its admission standards. 

Yesterday, Steven Walker of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that the school cleared out the Gender and Diversity Center, throwing the books it had accumulated into a dumpster. Officials said the books are no longer serving the needs of the college: “gender studies has been discontinued as an area of concentration at New College and the books are not part of any official college collection or inventory.” 

Republicans predictably sneer at those who increasingly compare such efforts of MAGA officials to events in Germany in the years leading up to the Nazi takeover, but the parallels are striking. The Holocaust Encyclopedia, among other histories, has reported on these purges of “unacceptable” ideas.

Beginning on May 10, 1933, Nazi-dominated student groups carried out public burnings of books they claimed were “un-German.” The book burnings took place in 34 university towns and cities. Works of prominent Jewish, liberal, and leftist writers ended up in the bonfires. The book burnings stood as a powerful symbol of Nazi intolerance and censorship.

“Intolerance and censorship” certainly characterize Ron DeSantis and his cohort–but I have to believe that contemporary efforts to suppress those who our neo-fascists disfavor will fail, and rather spectacularly. DeSantis may succeed in destroying a once-highly-regarded institution of higher education, but in a country with many other states and universities–not to mention the Internet– his destructive idiocy is simply unequal to the task.

To return to my analogy: when you leave leftovers in the back of your refrigerator too long, they smell up the whole place. Those who crafted the Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment understood that, when ideas are suppressed, they take on an odiferous life of their own. Deprived of the “sunlight” that is provided by robust public discussion and analysis, they fester below the surface, distorting and poisoning civil discourse. 

If the perspectives advanced in the books being discarded are harmful or incorrect or incompatible with America’s philosophy, DeSantis and his fellow censors should be able to make that argument in public. Clearly, they can’t.

Ultimately, censorship is an admission that those suppressing ideas are unable to counter them. They have no “sunlight” to offer.

Comments