What News is Good News?

By: Joseph Dunnigan 

The first amendment of the United States Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Now, this is good and bad news. 

  The good news, as many philosophers, statesmen/ women and other influential thinkers have expressed, is that the amendment can help create a well-informed society whose citizenry is able to freely express their feelings and ideas without fear from governmental retribution. So long as the Constitution remains “the supreme law of the land.” 

  The bad news is that protecting people’s speech can sometimes mean dealing with some not so nice people and hearing some not so accurate information. Heck, social media lives off this!

Still, boundaries exist. 

  For example, the United States Courts, on their webpage “What Does Free Speech Mean?” show some instances when speech may not be protected. According to their page, the amendment does not include the protection “to make or distribute obscene materials, to burn draft cards as an anti-war protest or for students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) also has a similar list, which includes the lack of protection for speech that “causes lawless action, is fraudulent or is perjurious.” 

  Nevertheless, certain speech can occur in ethical gray areas. 

  For instance, there have been several occasions when President Trump, his White House Staff and others have singled out certain media outlets. 

Just last week, many news agencies reported President Trump’s words against NBC. As a NY Post article stated, the President called NBC “discredited.” The article also related that Trump told an NBC reporter that he didn’t want to talk to them anymore. This wasn’t the President’s only instance of silencing the press. 

  According to multiple sources, the Associated Press has been banned from “some Presidential events, the Oval Office and Air Force One.” And as of February 24th, they remained banned. The White House even released this statement, 

  “As we have said from the beginning, asking the President of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right. We stand by our decision to hold the Fake News accountable for their lies, and President Trump will continue to grant an unprecedented level of access to the press. This is the most transparent Administration in history.”

  Stating that you’re being the most transparent Administration in history while also banning certain news outlets seems to be contradictory. Unfortunately, there is a precedent for refusing access to the press.

  According to a February 26th Fox News article, “In 2023, more than 440 reporters lost press credentials after President Biden’s White House modified its rules for eligibility for permanent passes.” 

  Fox News also reported that Biden’s guidelines for access required ‘proof of employment with “an organization whose principal business is news dissemination” and show that they have “accessed the White House campus at least once during the prior six months for work, or have proof of employment within the last three months to cover the White House.”’

  Still, that same Fox News article also stated that Trump has transferred authority of choosing media access from the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), an organization of hundreds of journalists whose mission is “to promote excellence in journalism as well as journalism education, and to ensure robust news coverage of the president and the presidency,” to the White House itself.

Fake news. Accountable. Lies. 

  Those three words, that are within the White House’s February 24th statement, have been hurled at certain media outlets for some time. And yet, they’re not reliable when considering their source. 

 Just two years ago, a certain news agency was in a bit of hot water over possible falsehoods they reported concerning voting machines and the election. The news agency was Fox News. 

  In April 2023, PBS News published an article that discussed how Fox News chose to settle their defamation lawsuit rather than go to trial. The PBS article also stated that a trial “could have shed additional light on former President Donald Trump’s election lies, revealed more about how the right-leaning network operates and even redefined libel law in the U.S.”

  Still, you’d be hard pressed to find much if anything from the current White House or President condemning Fox News as Fake news. They do not describe the news agency as “discredited.” And as far as I know, they’re still allowed in Air Force One, in the Oval Office and at Presidential Events. With that said, the closest the President came to admonishing Fox News was when he singled out one of their reporters who happened to challenge his agenda. 

  According to a Newsweek article published on March 19th, Trump criticized Fox News’s senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich on Truth Social when he posted, “…she was absolutely terrible. She should be working for CNN, not Fox.” The article expressed the reason for the President’s critique as a response to Mrs. Heinrich’s questioning Trump’s decision to break from the WHCA as well as his exhibit of Tesla vehicles at the White House while the “tariff trade war” seemed to be having a negative effect on American retirement funds.  

  While the Constitution still stands as the supreme law of the land, free speech and free press will hopefully have a chance. But time will tell. 

  As Trump continues to boast about his transparency, simultaneously, he, his staff and others also continue to admonish those who oppose him. If this continues, you can be sure there will be less good news and more bad news that comes from that. 

  Now, it’s more important than ever to acknowledge that Free speech is for everyone. You can’t pick and choose who gets to have it. And a Free Press is essential to ensuring more than one side has its say.