Their words were as powerful and moving as the First Amendment.
They ranged from refugees of Nazi Germany to idealistic high school students, from mechanics to retired attorneys, from civics teachers to inmates.
More than 900 readers of The Oregonian responded to a survey seeking their views on the amendment.
The volume, passion and eloquence of the responses were inspiring.
Take the one from Charles A. Finger, who describes himself as a nameless, faceless, heavy-industrial mechanic from St. Johns. He writes in detail about critical assaults on the First Amendment, from the government to ideologues with agendas. “I lead a quite isolated life, pushed as a jellyfish at sea by wind and tide,” he writes. “However, this condensed survey has piqued my interest.”
Overall, readers argued strongly for freedom of the press and spoke eloquently about the role that a press should play in a democracy. More than four out of five agreed the newspaper should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories and disagreed with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Fewer than one in six believes the press has too much freedom.
“It is an abomination that the press is inhibited in any way from being the public’s watchdog of all three branches of government,” writes Merle Kovash of West Linn. “Without a free press and protection of its sources, there are no checks and balances today.”
Almost two thirds of those who responded say they personally think about the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and many say they are growing increasingly worried about those rights.
“I’ve taken First Amendment rights for granted,” writes Marjorie Lickley of Redmond. “I see I can’t do that anymore. It’s too dangerous for America.”
But even in arguing for a free press, many said that journalists aren’t living up to those responsibilities.
Readers of all political persuasions described a litany of failures by the press and made eloquent arguments to raise the standards to which journalists aspire.
They argued that the press is:
Too timid. Many contend that the press fails to hold the government accountable. “I don’t know if the press is more restricted now versus, say, 40 years ago, however, I do feel it is certainly more timid,” writes Mark Murray, a small-business man from Prairie City. “What the American press allowed to happen with (claims that Iraq had) weapons of mass destruction was a great disservice to the American public.”
Too biased. Readers complained that the press has an agenda that isn’t necessarily in the public interest. Instead, the interest is partisan, they argue, and most often a liberal one.
Too shallow. Journalists not only get simple facts wrong, readers argued, but they don’t probe subjects deeply enough. “It’s not deliberate untruths I notice as much as biases of shallow thinking, thin evidence, questionable sources, simplistic approaches to problems,” writes Joanna Klick of Boring.
Too trivial. Many readers asked: If freedom of the press is so important, then why is so much attention paid to subjects from celebrity trials to fashion trends to sports?
Too concentrated, profit-oriented. Readers worried that the concentration of media ownership and the decline in the number of reporters nationwide weaken the journalism produced.
Reader Doris Colmes fled Nazi Germany at the age of 10. Today, the Portland writer fears that too many Americans — including journalists — take the First Amendment for granted. That’s especially dangerous, she says, because she fears civil liberties granted by the First Amendment are eroding.
“Guard it. Guard it with all your strength,” she says. “We need to speak up. That goes for the journalist. That goes for me, that goes for the housewife, that goes for the little child.”
Next Sunday: Students view the First Amendment differently than do adults, with many believing the government should be able to review news stories before publication.
