Vivienne Vermaak | Investigative Journalist | Contributing Author | Free Market Foundation | mail me |
Something is reassuring about US President Trump’s latest debacle on the White House lawn. It wasn’t just that he was inaudible while cutting the ribbon for a new helipad. No impressive long-lens shots made him look magnificent. No press showed up to film the event. They all refused.
After Trump banned journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from covering the event, other members of the White House ‘press pool’ refused to cover it as well. It is extremely rare for a US president to travel or make public appearances without a representative from the White House television press pool. Network cameras have covered the president since 1950.
Free press as a cornerstone of a liberal democracy
By standing their ground and challenging the decision in court, a cohort of press across the left/right spectrum reminded everyone of a simple principle. Government should not decide which journalists are entitled to report on government.
A free press is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy. When the elected leader presents as an autocratic dictator, wearing more medals than Idi Amin and applauding golden statues of themselves, it underscores the point. This incident is a reminder of constitutional values.
A free press is not a privilege bestowed by the president. It is an institutional expression of the public’s right to receive information, scrutinise those who exercise public power and contest the official version of events. Once access depends on favourable coverage, the relationship between government and media changes fundamentally.
Journalism becomes a licence rather than a liberty. That is precisely the sort of state power that liberal constitutionalism is designed to constrain.
The role of an independent press
The legacy media, with all its imperfections, reminded us that there are principles worth fighting for. It is a prompt to remember that having gatekeepers of information who take their job seriously is valuable and should be protected. Here, the media showed us that they understood their role as an independent player in the political spectrum. They also showed that this role is something worth fighting for. So, it is significant that Trump now has pushback from the very attention he craves: lights, cameras, centre stage.
The jokes are that he is currently in a triple pool problem. First, there are the issues with the reflective pool. Now there is the press pool. Niggling suspicions about the gene pool are also circulating. Incidents like this show the emperor without clothes. They also show the important role media plays in taking snapshots as the king disrobes.
South Africa should be particularly alert to this danger. Perhaps we should also be somewhat proud of ourselves. During a former president’s road to ruin, the press spoke gleefully about Nkandla and the infamous “fire pool”. Section 16 of the Constitution of South Africa explicitly protects freedom of the press and other media as a core part of the broader right to freedom of expression.
Defending press freedom does not require us to pretend that the legacy media are infallible. Mainstream media can exercise enormous agenda-setting power and political influence. Lobby groups can influence them. Government can pressure them. Anyone who throws enough money at them “for a good cause” can also exert influence. When governments decide which voices deserve access or favourable treatment, however, the danger extends beyond ordinary media bias.
The rise of independent voices
One of the most interesting developments in modern media is the emergence of independent publishers, newsletters, podcasts, YouTube channels and other forms of citizen journalism. These new entrants have become important precisely because established media organisations no longer possess an exclusive claim to the distribution of news.
Independent players are similarly prone to coercive control by power, technological and financial interests, of course. Legitimate concerns can, and should, be raised about the quality of the content and research of untrained voices in the arena. However, this is not necessarily a crisis. It can be a corrective or a balancing force.
The answer to journalism one considers biased, partisan, sensationalist or simply wrong is not generally to ask the state to silence it. The answer might be to produce better journalism, or more journalism. Publish competing evidence and allow audiences to exercise their judgement. That principle should also inform South Africa’s emerging debate about the proliferation of podcasts. This proliferation has yielded an extraordinary body of opinion, ranging from young black conservative voices to billionaire media personalities playing politics. A lot of it is terrible and arguably dangerous to our democracy. But what should be done?
In March this year, Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies convened a roundtable on podcasting. It brought together policymakers, regulators, podcasters, platforms, lawyers, civil society and academics. The discussion considered whether existing regulatory frameworks adequately address on-demand material. It also considered whether additional mechanisms may be required. The concerns are not frivolous. Podcasts can disseminate misinformation, defamatory claims, hate speech and privacy violations. They can also reach large audiences without the editorial structures traditionally associated with news organisations.
The podcast community, across the left/right spectrum, had voices in opposition. They argued that existing laws are sufficient to deal with criminal activity in the area. Moreover, the flourishing field is creating hope and employment for many. When governments decide that new forms of media require additional controls, they should therefore consider both the risks and the value that these platforms create.
A constitutional lesson for South Africa
The podcast landscape is decentralised, diverse and difficult to categorise. That is exactly the type of messiness that allows a marketplace of ideas that promotes intellectual competition. Trump’s latest media confrontation therefore offers South Africa an important constitutional lesson.
The freedom of the press is not primarily about shielding journalists from criticism. It is about protecting society from the consequences of allowing government to determine who may criticise it.
When governments decide who may scrutinise public power, they risk transforming journalism from a liberty into a permission granted by the state. The state should not become the editor-in-chief of the republic.