Freedom of the Press, Always

"Freedom of the Press

The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication and freedom from Censorship.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the press." The courts have long struggled to determine whether the Framers of the Constitution intended to differentiate press freedom from speech freedom. Most have concluded that freedom of the press derives from freedom of speech."

In this country, we have guaranteed the right for freedom of the press. There is to be no government censorship, and there is no government "state-run news agency" (although Mike Pence did try this in Indiana while governor). While there have been times, I'm sure, that those in power would rather that the press be shut down, freedom of the press has been "sacred" in this country. Yes, the press does sometimes get it wrong (I have been misquoted before), but since the beginning of our democracy, we have had confidence that the real, impartial news will be delivered to us every day by educated journalists who seek the truth. We counted on it, for how else were we going to know what our leaders, at every level, were doing? We couldn't all be at City Hall, at the Capitol Building, at the White House every minute of every day. But some journalists could, and we counted on their words, photos, and recordings. We digested all of that, and came to our own understandings of the world. 
When I was in grade school, we were given newspapers, and taught the difference between the facts in print ("The mayor visited a local school today, and gave a speech in which she said.....") and the opinions ("The mayor looked terrific today."). We were later taught what an original source was, and we understood that sometimes, a source could not safely be identified, but it was the right of the journalist to not disclose that source. In my lifetime, the biggest example of this was the person called "Deepthroat" in the Watergate story; but even with this anonymous source, the facts had to be verified before the story could be printed...true, trusted journalism.
And then came the internet, and then came social media.
Truth and impartiality, true unbiased facts--all are harder to find these days. You have to really know, and understand, that a blog post is not real news--it's an opinion piece, sometimes bolstered by fact. I do try, when writing my blog, to provide links to facts to prove my point, but sometimes "professional bloggers" don't. I try to avoid sharing things on social media that just aren't true, or are a distraction from the truth, but a lot of people don't to that. And, I've found that if we trust the person, we trust what they are sharing, no matter how ridiculous or absurd the "true story" is.
Amazingly, the news, and news sources, for each of us has become "slanted", and now we have a president that has used this for the worst possible purposes. His Chief Strategist came directly into the White House from an internet "news source" provider (Breitbart) that publishes lies, states them as facts, and then reports those "facts" to others. And, most tragically, these lies are regurgitated by "journalists" on a "news network" that people have come to trust for actual news. The "journalists" on this "news network" have not taken the time to verify the "facts" coming from Breitbart--they have done no original fact-checking, but have reported opinion as facts. We know this because there is just no way any fact-checking could be done, as quickly as the news story is re-reported. 
At this point, let me be clear. You can watch all the Fox news you want, but if you rely on that station for all your news, you are not getting true, unbiased, factual news all the time. I suggest you also take the time to read an AP Story once in a while, or an article or two from the New York Times (if for no other reason than to discover the US is not the only country in the world--an important thing to remember). And, if you want to see, for yourself, what your national leaders are up to, turn on C-Span. 
This is a long way to say:  
YOU SHOULD BE FRIGHTENED. YOU SHOULD BE FRIGHTENED ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING, RIGHT NOW, IN OUR COUNTRY.
In the past 24 hours, the President of the United States has used a speech to accuse the most trust-worthy, reliable news providers of being "fake" and "dishonest". And, he has said we should no longer trust the anonymous sources that real journalists have to sometimes rely on (see above). If you disagree with absolutely everything I have said so far about Breitbart and Fox, you should at least agree with me on this:  the survival of our democracy depends on "two sides to every story" and "the truth will set us free" and "trust but verify". 
The President of the United States does not believe this. His Chief Strategist is going to do everything in his power to destroy the free press in this country.
Hyperbole? No. Actual fact? Yes.
Yesterday, two things happened. The New York Times, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and Buzzfeed were all denied access to the Press Secretary. 
Then, late last night, this news broke:  (from the Washington Post):

"The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates’ ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia...

The effort also involved senior lawmakers with access to classified intelligence about Russia, including Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees. A spokesman for Nunes said that he had already begun speaking to reporters to challenge the story and that, “at the request of a White House communications aide, Chairman Nunes then spoke to an additional reporter and delivered the same message.”

Unlike the others, Nunes spoke on the record and was subsequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal.

In an interview, Burr acknowledged that he “had conversations about” Russia-related news reports with the White House and engaged with news organizations to dispute articles by the New York Times and CNN that alleged “repeated” or “constant” contact between Trump campaign members and Russian intelligence operatives."

Simply put? The White House is trying to control the news, and the truth, in this country, and have been able to enlist the help of members of Congress in reporting lies to the American people. 
So, where do we go from here? Back to reality television, our favorite sports teams, and believing that all of this is just politics? 
Or do we try to fight back? And how? We can't wait until 2018...our democracy will be gone by then.
Help me. Help us. Resist. 

I Wrote a Letter

I wrote this Letter to the Editor, and it was published:

"For at least 18 months, I have read letter after letter, disparaging one “side” or the “other”.  People who don’t even know me, my family, or my friends have pre-judged us. There are undoubtedly letters that have pre-judged you too.

Hatred, rancor, and distrust drip from letters. Disapproving words about employees of the university that provides employment to thousands in our community, and which has educated millions over the years. Educators and students you have never met, yet you feel you know all about them because of something you heard somewhere from someone.

Every day you drive on the same roads; without knowing who is in the lane next to you, you trust they won’t do something stupid to endanger you—you have to trust that “libtard”. You go to the grocery store and stand in the same lines that I do, and we want the same thing—to get out fast, with correct change. The person who ensures our hamburgers are fully cooked might be one of those despised “snowflakes”. We sit side by side at the same health clinic and we both pray the educated staff can help our loved ones.

In times of crisis in our state, community, or in our countryside, we still need to be able to work together for a common goal. I will be working with you.

We will be able to do that if our differences do not become irreconcilable. If that happens, even heaven will be unable to help us."

I mean, really--is there any word in the English language more offensive than "Libtard"?! I guess that's the reason it exists at all, but I've only seen it as a printed word--I have never heard anyone actually say it. Perhaps I run with the "wrong" crowd, or perhaps it takes a special sort of person to actually use the word to describe another human being.

The internet has millions of good purposes, but this trolling has got to stop--we have allowed a subculture to be able to "say" ugly things to and about fellow human beings, and to be glib and thoughtless when responding to an issue that needs to be discussed in a civilized manner. Things that you would never, ever say out loud now find their way into print, and I honestly fear it will lead to "irreconcilable differences".