I was recently watching the always thought provoking CBS Sunday Morning show and saw an opinion piece on the terrorist activities in Paris. It was written by the editor of Mad magazine, the closest thing we have to France’s Charlie Hebdo.
He was voicing his opinion regarding the danger that journalists now find haunting them. It was a simple statement but the possible ramifications caused him to consider the wisdom of even making an appearance on the program.
His admission hit me hard. It was surprising, disturbing and sad to know he felt that concern or that it gave him even a moment’s pause.
Courage remains the cornerstone of our ability to maintain a democracy; courage to support and fight for the freedoms that make us who we are. In his case courage to appear even though it might put him in the sights of a radical terrorist opportunist.
This is the second occurrence in less than a month whose end game is intended to jeopardize our most basic freedom. Sony’s response to the cyber threat that initially stopped the distribution of the movie, “The Interview,” struck me as cowardly when I first learned of it. I was fundamentally shaken by what appeared to be capitulation to threats from a distant dictator nation. It was potentially precedent-setting for how our future responses would be handled.
I recognize that there was an understandable and legitimate concern on Sony’s part. As a business, they had to be reasonable and measured in their response to the threat. Extraordinary liability could be involved, but as a business citizen of the United States, they needed to stand up for the very freedoms allowing them to profitably function. The nation watched and spoke out.
Using multiple outlets offered by technology our citizens and our President gave Sony the support they needed to fight back and show the courage it takes to win against a bully. National outrage fueled the fire allowing Sony to find other ways to widely distribute the film. Normally I wouldn’t have chosen to see it, but this one I purchased just to metaphorically flip North Korea the bird.
Then came the assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris. I began to wonder what has made the media and journalists the targets of radical groups. What, beyond their intolerance and ignorance and total lack of a sense of humor, could be changing the landscape of radicalism and war so that it now included not only satirists but mainstream news journalists?
It used to be that journalists got a pass. They often received safe passage and were only collateral damage in hostilities. They had something the warring factions needed. Journalists offered members of a cause an outlet for the international attention they craved. Now, it seems one of the unintended consequences of the omnipresent everyman’s access to the Internet is that getting the attention of the world still uses journalists, but it has morphed into killing them in horrifying ways.
Free societies have a long, checkered history with journalists of all types. Those in power hate their constant scrutiny and those outside the great and hallowed halls depend on it. The power and value of the press to a self governing nation have proven so strong that it is often called the fourth estate.
Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying: “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Walter Lippman wrote that a “free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society.” Anything that chills the expression and free access to ideas should make our collective spirits constrict in dread. From book burning to threats of violence, anything that leads to direct or indirect censorship must be a call to action.
This is not a theoretical notion that carries no impact on our local life. This is the same issue of censorship we have recently experienced by the Starkville Board of Aldermen as they went behind closed doors to do “their business.”
We shouldn’t ignore local abuses any more than we can or should ignore the dire threats from outside sources. That free exchange of ideas includes insisting our local government stays in full view of the public without using spurious reasons to circumvent the press and the people. One approach undermines from without, the other from within; they both require courage from citizens to stand up and demand better.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.