60. Should journalists limit whom they give a voice?
I’ll explain with two tangible decisions:
You’re an executive of a cable news network. Trump is dominating the air waves and it seems that just about every day he says something increasingly controversial. Most of your viewers don’t support him, but nearly a majority of Republican voters do. You personally feel that what he says does harm — that it doesn’t just inconvenience people, but that it indirectly changes lives. If you let everything play itself out, your network will cover him extensively — because even if your viewers don’t support him, they love watching and hearing about him, even if they’re not willing to admit it. If you don’t cover him and he becomes the nominee or President, how embarrassing will it be that you deliberately ignored a major news development? If you don’t cover him and he becomes irrelevant, would that be partially because you squelched his voice, and shouldn’t you have let people decide for themselves? What do you do?
You’re the editor of the New York Times, and a tough decision has made its way up the chain of command to you. In most situations, it would be a no-brainer to link to original sources if they’re readily available online. Mentioning a press release? Link to it. Profiling a start-up? Link to its website. Writing about a controversial ad? Link to it on YouTube. Analyzing a bill? Link to its raw text. But the decision in front of you isn’t nearly as easy. ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has released an audio recording “imploring more Muslims to fight on behalf of his increasingly besieged group.” The Times is writing about it, but your editors disagree as to whether to link to the audio recording. Some feel that doing so would help ISIS reach more people and further their cause, empowering the organization to commit more violence. Others feel that would be choosing sides, squelching a voice that readers should be able to decide for themselves whether to listen to, even if just out of curiosity. And these editors argue further that linking to the audio isn’t condoning its message, and that the effects could go both ways — readers may further solidify their disagreement with ISIS’s ideology after better understanding it. What do you do?
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
— The Friends of Voltaire Hall, by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (conveying Voltaire’s beliefs)
ISIS Influence on Web Prompts Second Thoughts on First Amendment
By The New York Times (Erik Eckholm)
December 27, 2015
It is one of the most hallowed precepts in modern constitutional law: Freedom of speech may not be curbed unless it poses a “clear and present danger” — an actual, imminent threat, not the mere advocacy of harmful acts or ideas. But in response to the Islamic State’s success in grooming jihadists over the Internet, some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider that constitutional line.
Appeals for a tougher response to the Islamic State’s online recruiting efforts have, not surprisingly, emerged from the political realm. Donald J. Trump said the government should call on Bill Gates and others to somehow close off dangerous Internet sites, and called First Amendment concerns foolish.
Hillary Clinton said the government should work with host companies to shut jihadist websites and chat rooms. That would be constitutional if voluntary, legal experts say, but not if the government exerted pressure on private firms to cooperate in censorship.
…
“We’ve learned over 200 years of history that what seems like a sensible approach in the heat of the moment, in terms of restricting speech, is highly likely to be a bad judgment,” [said Geoffrey R. Stone, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Chicago].
He said the Sedition Act of 1798, which outlawed false statements about the government, was used by the Federalists to persecute their opponents, the supporters of Thomas Jefferson.
…
All these legal experts, including [Eric] Posner, [a University of Chicago Law professor,] agree that if today’s Supreme Court considered his proposed law, it would be struck down. But if more Americans who were indoctrinated by jihadist videos engage in terrorist attacks, they also agree, the court’s thinking could change. “Five years from now, who knows?” Mr. Stone said. “You can imagine a scenario in which things get so terrible that you start watering down the protections.”
Dear Former TV Colleagues, Give Us a Week Without Trump
Op-Ed by Campbell Brown (Politico)
December 11, 2015
To my former TV colleagues: Please stop. Just for one week, don’t say his name. As many have already said, no presidential candidate in history has gotten this much free airtime. Let’s stop being complicit in promoting his hateful and harmful demagoguery. Just for one week.
I know what you are going to say. The high-minded response will be that he is a leading presidential candidate making outrageous, provocative statements. Your job is to report the news and let Americans decide how to think about it. But I will say this back to you: TV has been obsessed with Trump from the moment he announced, well before he was leading in most polls.
It’s censorship, some will say. No, it’s not. There’s always YouTube. Let him have YouTube.
As a former cable news anchor, I have been in your shoes, so let’s be honest about why TV is bombarding us with his every pronouncement. Contemptible yet spellbinding, he is candy for the cameras. Every performance both repulses and compels, and no one looks away. No one ever looks away. And of course, the job of every TV anchor and reporter is partly trying to ensure no one ever looks away.
Why Facebook and Twitter Can’t Just Wipe Out ISIS Online
By Wired (Julia Greenberg)
November 21, 2015
… “Isn’t there something we can do under existing law to shut those Internet sites down?” But it’s not that simple, and social media platforms have grappled with the issue in some ways since at least the days when Al Qaeda affiliates started uploading videos to YouTube.
The problem lies in the global nature of social media, the reliance upon self-policing by users to identify objectionable content, and the fact that many of those banned simply open a new account and continue posting their hatred. A blanket policy of banning anything that might be seen as inciting violence also could lead to questions of censorship, because one person’s hateful propaganda could be another’s free speech. That’s not to say companies like Facebook and Twitter aren’t taking this seriously and trying to draw a distinction between the two. But it’s not as simple as you might think.
ISIS Video Presents Grim Choice for News Media
By The New York Times (Ravi Somaiya)
February 3, 2015
The images spread rapidly online Tuesday, some more graphic than others: A caged Jordanian pilot, captured by the militants of the Islamic State late last year, was shown apparently being burned alive.
The video was readily available, particularly on social media. It raised a sensitive issue for news outlets once again: Should they show the images, just a click away for most readers anyway, or refrain?
