Discussion

By Ralph Broadwater on Sep 28, 2007

The line between freedom of the press and freedom of speech is forever blurred. Last week some Prozac-deprived freak of nature cried about how cruel this evil world has been to poor little (?) Britney. Within 24 hours the world knew him and was waiting for more. Can you remember a front page headline from last week? Do you remember "leave Britney alone!".

By Jean-Marie Hershey on Sep 30, 2007

With traditional media under attack in this country, it is reassuring to be reminded that “we are the press.”

We’ve seen a series of escalating challenges to a free press in recent years. Some, like talk radio, whose Rush Limbaugh and disciples have built careers on denouncing the “drive-by” media, are blatant and public. Some are legal, like the Valerie Plame-Judith Miller fiasco. Some have been insidious and covert, like last year’s CIA leak investigation into phone calls and contacts made by reporters for ABC News, the NYTimes and Washington Post. Agenda-driven outlets like the FOX News, The Drudge Report and others have been set up to subvert and oppose their “mainstream” counterparts. The jury is still out on the effects of Rupert Murdoch’s recent acquisition of the WSJ.

For members of the trade press, neither a steady diet of press releases – perfectly needful things in themselves – nor the legitimate need to attract advertising dollars absolves us of the responsibility to think and form judgments independently. By the same token, it should not surprise or offend anyone when trade journalists behave like, well, journalists. Because it is more important than ever to debate, express contrarian opinions and question the status quo, it is encouraging to see a variety of forums multiplying for that purpose.

I would argue, however, that there is a distinction to be drawn between professional journalism and the free-wheeling, field-leveling, “come one, come all” invitation to free expression that is the Internet. A perfect example among many, many others is the “Prozac-deprived freak of nature” (ouch) to which Mr. Broadwater refers in his earlier post. One likes to think that the perspective, competence and skill professional journalists bring to the party is still of value beyond the “shoot-from-the-hip” maunderings of anybody with a broadband connection and time on his hands.

By Noel Ward on Oct 01, 2007

Freedom of speech does relate closely to freedom of press. It can be argued that they have become synonymous, since the the "press" can be an email or blog entry. There are really two things at issue in this thread. First, we are all entitled to our own opinions, journalists included. In his column, Frank Romano was reporting on events at the show. And absent of malice, if he found an event or product coming up short, it is entirely within the grounds of journalistic responsibility for him to say so. And it is also OK for people to take him to task for his comments--without personal attacks. That goes with the territory. But how that is done is another matter. And that's the second issue. Electronic communications has increased the willingness of people to say things publicly via blogs or more privately via email that they wouldn't say to someone's face. More and more, people fire off "flaming" emails, personal attacks and vituperative blog entries that let them vent but do nothing to address the issue at hand, correct a misconception or learn from the commentary. Aside from making the writers of such diatribes look like jerks, it points to the further decline of civility and good manners, two characteristics of society that are increasingly absent in this graceless age. Is this one of those "benefits" of technology? Or a symptom of something far worse? Now there's a topic to discuss. We --all of us-- have indeed become the press. And for the "press" to be valued it needs to operate with a certain respect for each others' opinions and ideas. Our mothers presumably taught us to play nice. Maybe we should all remember what she said.