A free press is one of the hallmarks of American democracy, and it is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. But what we mean by a free press is often up for debate, not only among politicians and we-the-people, but also in the media itself.
Up until World War II the code for news reporters was to seek the truth and report it. That was the only agenda; seek the truth as they found it, and report it. Reporting was changed after World War II, especially as television entered the news field. At one point the Hutchins Commission did a study called "A Free And Responsible Press" and was the first to warn "the primary danger of a free press is the concentration of ownership." Later, a fad developed called "interpretive reporting." The idea here was that it wasn't enough to give readers the facts; a reporter should also tell the reader what the facts meant. Some other fads developed, and then, a decade or so ago, came "civic journalism." The idea here is that "journalism should have chosen results; and stories should have desired ends." The Pew Center did a study on this for a while, but recently announced it was shutting that study down. Then there was "advocacy journalism." It's still around. It appears likely all this will be replaced with a thing called J-Lab which will allow reporters to compliment their stories with other thoughts and information on the internet. Interestingly, this project will likely headquarter at Georgia's own Kennesaw State University. J-Lab is a work in process, of course, but the general idea is for a reporter to write the story, then write a bunch of stuff on the internet to tell you what all that means. All this in news; not the opinion section.
It seems to me the free press had it right when reporters believed their job was simply to seek the truth and report it ... and let the readers make up their own mind.
This Gordon Sawyer, and may the wind always be at your back.
Tuesday
August 5th, 2025
8:13PM
