By Lori Lee
NDG Contributing Writer
After filing suit on a number of media outlets prior to taking office, the Trump Administration started the year with even more attacks on the free press. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in the last two months, has announced investigations into Comcast, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR,) and local news stations, Axios reported.
Pentagon news organizations NPR, NBC, Politico, and CNN have also been replaced with conservative agencies like the Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, and Newsmax, they report.
Following an election skewed with disinformation, now, more than ever, Americans need accurate media sources to keep citizens informed while shielding them from increasing attacks on their democracy. The freedom of the press to is granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution, making direct attacks on press freedoms unconstitutional.
Yet unlike the recent ban of an Associated Press reporter over refusing to speak of the “Gulf of America,” common tactics focus less on content and more on administrative items. These include workplace practices, tax issues, or fraud allegations, explained Joel Simon, founding director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at New York’s Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, in a February 14 Ethnic Media Services briefing.
The administration has demonstrated considerable sophistication and employed surprising tactics in its attacks on media. “So expect the unexpected,” he warned.
Last month, Brendan Carr, the new Republican chair of the FCC, announced an investigation into Comcast following MSNBC criticisms of Trump Administration Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies, Comcast being the parent of MSNBC. The move came three weeks after a Trump executive order ending DEI hiring practices. The agency’s claim that Comcast still promotes DEI forms the basis of its attack on the organization, the New York Times reported.
Further attacks on PBS and NPR over whether their stations’ underwriting announcements broke laws by stepping into commercial advertising is another move in a set of regulatory threats, which Simon suggests will eventually implicate other agencies.
FCC investigations are chilling in themselves, added free speech expert and director of the First Amendment Coalition, David Loy. “The process is the punishment,” he added.
The FCC is asserting some such claims based on the public interest doctrine, that news reporting is not in the public interest if government does not approve of what is being said. Loy also pointed out that regulatory authority of the FCC only applies to broadcast media, dating back to when the Supreme Court deemed the airwaves a scarce resource and granted the FCC limited authority to regulate TV and radio.
Yet, issues surrounding the question of FCC authority have just started to surface and have not been thoroughly aired out in court, Loy explained. Initiating FCC investigations or disciplinary actions based on a distaste for what is being reported should be thrown out or laughed out of court if the law is followed, he asserted. The First Amendment protects the right of the press to decide what it will or will not report and the manner in which it is reported, he added. Further, what public officials do and how law enforcement operates are each matters of public interest, on which the press has a right to report.
Lawyers for Reporters attorney, Zachary Press, recommends beefing up digital security and obtaining affordable media law or media liability insurance. This, so reporters can have the level of confidence needed to report important news stories.
Further, when being served with a third-party subpoena requesting information ordinarily protected by law, reporters need to be aware of their rights.
Press freedoms seem to be under attack in many countries, added Simon. Americans now work in an environment of expanding governmental authority and increasing censorship. American reporters should learn from the experiences of reporters who are already grappling with these threats in other countries, while acknowledging that a different set of laws apply in different territories.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation are becoming more and more common, added Press. States are therefore adding anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws to protect people from lawsuits intended to silence them. By helping defendants recover attorneys fees in these meritless cases, the laws can be a strong deterrent to court filings.
Yet, as Simon added, the thing that has kept journalists and media safe has not always been laws or norms, but the power of media relative to government or other adversarial forces. Since the power of media has been diminished, he explained, media agencies have become increasingly vulnerable.
Loy warned journalists they should not be terrified by the flood of attempted intimidation coming from this administration. Autocracy depends on acquiescence, he said. “I do not believe the press or anyone should self-censor because of the fear that government will abuse its power.
Recent acts of intimidation are clearly unconstitutional, yet, it’s important to get your business house in order and be as bulletproof as possible from a tax, business, employment, labor, and record keeping perspective.
Be aware of your rights, he added. “I believe strongly in doing what I can with what I have,” . . . But “ignore your rights, and they will go away.”
There aren’t a lot of places where rights have been reclaimed because once eroded, their reclamation is very difficult.
“We’re really living through a crucial moment, he added, “and I make that observation based on what I’ve seen happen around the world.”
“Now is the time for the press most of all to stand up for its right to report the news.”
