Journalism

[Commentary] The president’s use of a public platform like Twitter to talk directly with the American people is unprecedented for the presidency, and it raises legal, ethical, and cultural issues that have never been tackled in American politics. The more outrageous President Donald Trump’s online comments have become, the more coverage they’ve received, creating a symbiotic relationship that has come to define Trump’s relationship with the media that covers him. But it has also boxed in a press corps that has come to simultaneously depend on and benefit from Trump’s Twitter torrent. Just because it’s being tweeted by the president, is it news?

In effect, Twitter has given Trump the illusion of transparency and accessibility without his having to actually provide them—or the accountability that usually comes with a two-way conversation with the press. It allows him to state untruths with impunity, knowing that his tweets will be widely redistributed by his followers and the media, and to dodge follow-up questions or criticism.

[Mathew Ingram is a former senior writer with Fortune magazine]

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel of the Federal Communications Commission said that the FCC needs to stand up tall for the First Amendment and against threats against TV station licenses leveled by President Donald Trump. Commissioner Rosenworcel said that the FCC would definitely not pull the license of a station at the behest of the President, but she said it was important for all the commissioners "to make clear that they support the First Amendment and that the agency will not revoke a broadcast license simply because the agency is dissatisfied with the licensees' coverage."

Since his election as president, Donald Trump has tweeted to or about Fox News nearly 130 times. The most recent example was early Oct 16, when Trump shared a comment from economist Art Laffer that had just been made on a Fox network. How do we know that was the origin of the quote? President Trump made sure to tag Fox News in the tweets. He might also have tagged Fox Business, the network he was watching.

Which is unusual: He’s usually watching “Fox and Friends” on weekday mornings, a show he’s mentioned or retweeted 79 times as president — once every three days or so. What’s critical to remember, though, is that President Trump’s interest in Fox News predates his presidency substantially. Since 2010, he’s tweeted about Fox News more than 1,200 times, most heavily in 2015 as he enjoyed the network’s coverage as he tried to woo Republican voters — and most often between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m., when “Fox and Friends” is on.

Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic, and elsewhere: Facebook’s enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information spheres, the increasing scourge of “viral” hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks, and the Russian information ops agency.

But no one delivered the synthesis that could have tied together all these disparate threads. It’s not that this hypothetical perfect story would have changed the outcome of the election. The real problem—for all political stripes—is understanding the set of conditions that led to Trump’s victory. The informational underpinnings of democracy have eroded, and no one has explained precisely how.

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s constant press attacks carry a worldwide price — they hurt America’s ability to stand for democratic freedoms around the world. “When the president consistently speaks that way, there’s a loss of U.S. influence and credibility on matters of press freedom,” said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Even if Trump can’t really get a network’s broadcast license revoked or libel laws changed, he can still can — and does — undermine American values, both here and abroad, when he attacks the press. And no amount of transparency-by-tweet or backslapping access for reporters can make up for that.

The US government's decision to withdraw from the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which has a mandate to promote "the free flow of ideas by word and image [and] to foster free, independent, and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online," will make the world less safe for journalists.

As the lead UN agency responsible for implementing the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, support for UNESCO is intrinsically linked to ensuring that journalists can work without fear of reprisal. The joint statement called for the U.S. government to reverse its decision and instead commit to increasing UNESCO's effectiveness and impact.

The New York Times presented new social media guidelines for its reporters in a memo that includes a warning to "not express partisan opinions" or "promote political views," among other rules. "In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation,” reads the memo from executive editor Dean Baquet. “Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively," he wrote.

"We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy. While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or 'like' online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times," the memo warns.

On Oct 13, 20 press freedom, media justice, labor and civil liberties groups submitted a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai urging him to publicly condemn President Donald Trump's threats to challenge the broadcast licenses of news media outlets he dislikes. Signers of the letter also include former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and former FCC commissioners Michael J. Copps and Gloria Tristani.

"As an independent agency charged with protecting the public interest and overseeing the public airwaves, the FCC must resist any attempts to co-opt the broadcast-licensing process to suit the president’s whims,” reads the letter, which was signed by Color of Change, Committee to Protect Journalists, the Communications Workers of America, Free Press, Freedom of the Press Foundation, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, PEN America and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, among others.

[Commentary] By their silence, the Republicans at the Federal Communications Commission have joined in the president’s strategy to get into the head of every television station news editor and station manager in the country. If, because the FCC failed to make clear that the government can’t bully them, even one broadcaster thinks twice about a story and its effect on their license, then the Constitution has been abridged and the FCC is complicit.

By their inaction, the Republican FCC commissioners have already violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. That sacred document is clear: The government is not to suppress ideas and opinion. There is no ambiguity in the First Amendment. The commissioners owe it to the American public and the Constitution they swore to uphold to issue an immediate and clear statement that speech is a protected right, and that it has no role in the matter of broadcast licenses. While they’re at it, they should also issue an apology to the citizens of the United States that they took over two days to get around to telling America the truth.

[Tom Wheeler is the former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 2013-2017].

As President Donald Trump exploits his office to chill his critics’ speech at a nearly unprecedented level, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has a chance to be on the right side of history. He has a chance to stand up for the free-speech rights of people without power — in particular the rights of people of color, who are President Trump’s favorite punching bags. The question is whether he’ll seize that chance. It’s Pai’s job to protect the public interest in the realm of media, technology and communications. He has a duty, and a moral obligation, to stand up and publicly decry Trump’s behavior.