A free press is no longer enough, it must be principled as well

Freedom fighters always take over the local radio or TV station. That’s to say, taking the reins of mass communication is a key objective in any campaign to topple a tyrant. It’s as important as taking control of an airfield. In the long run, probably even more important.

In the western world, a free press has long been one of the chief guardians of democracy.

So as a former journalist, it irks me to admit that lately I’ve found myself troubled by the term “free press.”

Of course, I wholeheartedly support a press that serves as a check on power whether it’s wielded by elected leaders, businesses tycoons or riotous mobs.

The term “free press” has traditionally described the company of mainstream news outlets that has exercised that crucial check on power in our society. But language evolves.

It’s also subject to cultural context and open to personal interpretation. So what does the term “free press” mean today — in the aftermath of the storming of the U.S. Capitol?

I hope most of us recognize that some news outlets cloaked in journalism’s clothes are largely propaganda mills churning out spleen-venting partisan harangues. Or maybe they’re just opportunistic profit-making machines. Or both. After all, outrage is good for business.

But as we recently witnessed, a steady diet of mass-media vitriol is toxic to civil society and fragile democracies.

As we endure widespread lockdowns and navigate an array of pandemic safety protocols, cries of freedom from antimaskers’ are often accompanied by pleas for free speech.

Fights for freedom are usually grounded in struggles for rights. But they’re often one-sided attacks. They champion rights, without recognizing the responsibilities that come with exercising rights in a civil society.

Of course we all have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road. But the Mack truck in the oncoming lane will quickly demonstrate we probably can’t exercise that right without life-changing consequences.

Freedom of speech is no different. Even in our post-truth, alternativefacts world I hope we can agree that we can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theatre without having our freedoms curbed … at least until police issue a summons.

This has long been the principle under which traditional news outlets have operated.

As free as they have been from direct government intervention, they have always been subject to government regulation in the form of laws against defamation; laws against anti-competitive practices; laws requiring the payment of taxes, and so on.

So what do we mean by a free press these days? Maybe the time-honoured term needs a makeover.

Hollywood — the Tinseltown juggernaut that relentlessly pushes social norms — has provided a glimmer of a solution.

In her rousing Golden Globe Awards acceptance speech back in 2017, Meryl Streep didn’t champion a free press — she rallied her compatriots to support a “principled press.”

So out of the mouth of the principal actor from “Mamma Mia!” we’ve been gifted a nugget of clarity.

Maybe a free press is no longer adequate in a post-truth-alternative-facts world.

Maybe a “free and principled press” needs to be our new battle cry.

I, for one, say “vive la evolution!”