Osama bin Laden and his gangs conceivably could score a hit on the U.S. Constitution.
All they have to do is help fear and misperception attack the First Amendment with excessive censorship, and watch as a crippled press is ignored by “patriots” in its effort to help the public deal with unfettered rumors, unfettered government and blind subservience to Big Brother.
It’s a scenario that may seem too outrageous to give a second thought.
However, the alarming reality is that there are some people who would allow the government to convert crisis and anti-media sentiments into a suspension of press freedoms that could bind free inquiry indefinitely, because the war on terrorism could last for generations. It’s not too early to urge caution in curbing the flow of information.
Journalists, like other good citizens, appreciate the government’s need to protect sensitive information. We have honored requests to observe sensitivities, but we simply do not trust government — an institution with a stunning record of lies, coverups, waste and other acts that have not served the public. That’s why we are your watchdogs.
We don’t know whether the government would be inclined to return any freedom of inquiry that’s taken away. Our sense of distrust makes us virtual traitors in the minds of some people. Consider a few of the views I’ve heard from readers:
- We trust the government; we do not trust the media.
- Americans have too much freedom. It wouldn’t hurt to be less free but safe.
- We’re sick and tired of hearing that the public has a right to know.
- The press should say only what the federal government wants it to say.
- We’re fed up with the news media asking stupid questions about sensitive matters. Quit asking questions.
Such nervous, angry reaction followed news reports about a member of Congress leaking highly sensitive information to the press (which did not publish the information) and that the videotaped tirade by bin Laden that was aired on every network may have contained coded information for his operatives.
That possibility led to a conference call on Wednesday between national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and the major U.S. television networks, resulting in an agreement to abridge any further bin Laden tapes.
Censorship has been invoked during past wars. Generally, the press has respected and still respects that need.
Jim Witt, vice president and executive editor of the Star-Telegram, notes that the newspaper knew on the day after the Sept. 11 attacks that authorities had taken two suspects from an Amtrak train here, but the paper did not publish the story “because the FBI asked us not to print it for reasons of national security. The next day, the information became public knowledge.”
But there’s a troubling situation afoot these days that could result in compromised First Amendment concepts. Anti-media sentiment in the private and public sectors is at an all-time high. Government is quicker than ever to attack the press with everything from subpoenas for reporters’ notes to condemnation. Should anyone care?
Meanwhile, we will do our part in protecting security. We don’t know what the government will do, but we’re skeptical.
Samuel Adams was, too. A major leader in the American Revolution, he still shares these thoughts with us:
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you.”
