Americans once relied on the press for fair reporting and government transparency. With the election of President Trump, we have witnessed America’s mainstream media transition from guardians of truth to puppets of partisan politics. Yet the importance of the freedom of the press remains.
The freedom of the press is a constitutionally mandated right that is a foundational piece of our democracy. It ensures that Americans are kept informed and have the knowledge and awareness to hold our elected leaders accountable. It gives the American people the ability to keep a close eye on the government, instead of being blindly subjected to it.
In 2015, the Montana legislature passed legislation—which I sponsored—that created the nation’s strongest freedom of the press law. This legislation ensures that the digital communications of the press remain safeguarded with absolute privilege, and allows for no exceptions. The Montana state legislature has also passed numerous “first in the nation” legislation bills that enact Fourth Amendment safeguards regarding digital communications and technologies, to ensure our government’s mass surveillance activities don’t lead to a self-censored authoritarian state.
Nearly every state has enacted a shield law that protects journalists from having to reveal confidential sources. This ensures that whistleblowers can safely contact journalists and share their stories without either party being revealed or targeted. Yet due to nation’s third-party doctrine, and outdated 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, these shield laws have become outdated. If a whistleblower contacts a member of the press, the press still does not have to reveal their source, however the digital information of the press—including phone and email records—can be obtained. Through these records, the whistleblower can be identified and retaliated against. Montana’s model legislation ensures that the digital correspondence of the press cannot be obtained to identify, retaliate, or silence whistleblowers and other states should follow suit.
In our current political environment, we are witnessing a new level of animosity between the press and our nation’s leaders. This polarized environment has become outright hostile and we are witnessing members of the media and our leaders make extreme assertions about each other. Sadly, both sides are in the wrong.
We most recently witnessed this at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. The event was supposed to be the model of fair and balanced reporting. Instead, the headliner was comedian Michelle Wolf, whose act was demeaning and disrespectful. It would have never been acceptable during previous administrations. The belittling and depreciating treatment of Trump is the extreme opposite of the cozy relationship that existed under former President Barack Obama.
The normalcy of these partisan attacks within media has inspired government leaders to strike back by attempting to rein in the misuse of these well-intended rights. And strike they have.
The Department of Homeland Security is proposing to infringe—or at the very least intimidate—the right to freedom of the press. The DHS created the “Media Monitoring” plan which would give a contracting company 24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, and bloggers to “identify any and all media coverage related to the DHS or a particular event.”
DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton tweeted that this is standard practice and “any suggestion otherwise is fit for tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists.” Houlton is correct that this is standard practice in nations like North Korea, China, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, but not in America. Even the thought of being watched changes the activities and conversations of people, which stymies our free flow of ideas and freedom of speech.
Even with state protections like Montana’s, DHS’s “Media Monitoring” plan directly infringes on the rights and privacy of the media. DHS claims that this is standard practice, but we must keep in mind the agency conducting the activities. Our security agencies are not fond of our constitutionally-mandated rights. A well-defined framework of procedures should be shared in order to prove to the American public that this new plan is not an attempt at press surveillance.
But until the press begins to act responsibly and recover credibility, these First Amendment rights will continuously be challenged and infringed upon. These rights come with responsibilities. It is up to the press to ensure that their explicit First Amendment rights are utilized as intended: to be the eyes of the American people and watchdog of government instead of the lapdog of political agendas.
