David Marshall

(5/2022) When it comes to current events, politics or even the state of American democracy, not every person has an opinion. While an individual’s opinion typically represents their personal viewpoint or judgement, it may not necessarily be based on actual facts or the benefit of pure knowledge on a particular subject. A key element in a democracy is the active participation of its people.

Citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to carefully watch how their political leaders and representatives use or abuse the authority given to them and to ultimately express their own opinions and interests in the form of voting. Therefore, a citizen having no political opinion is just as bad as those whose opinions are shaped and formed by lies and misinformation. In both cases, a person can easily be manipulated and exploited by those who have little regard for a healthy American democracy. We have to come to the realization that not everyone who claims to love America supports true democracy. The free press always be under attack because it serves as a critical piece in any democracy. Authoritarians who oppose democracy by their actions will also oppose the free press.

Professional journalists are one of the keys to any society with a free press. Journalists can easily be taken for granted, but they have become effective watchdogs for the public and we should accept them with appreciation as they serve that capacity. A watchdog, in the truest sense, will make "noise" when they sense incoming or present trouble. Journalists as watchdogs have a vital responsibility to not only reliably inform the general public, but to protect the public from ineffectiveness, corruption or wrongful practices from those in positions to represent the people. We have traditionally received much of our news from trusted sources who investigate, fact check, obtain multiple confirming sources and report actual news by following a set of standards and ethical guidelines.

America’s free press is becoming weaker. The goal of journalism is to give citizens information that can be used to make smart decisions, but scare tactics and sensationalism by way of the news media can destroy that goal. They are justifiable limits regarding the freedom of the press and sometimes those limits are crossed. There are times we see sloppy journalism, ethical lapses and cases where journalists have invaded the private lives of citizens. As a counter, there is a system of accountability where news outlets make corrections and amendments to stories in an effort to remain transparent. Informing the public based on the truth is not everyone’s objective. As a result, there is a difference between a professional journalist and a partisan pundit. Many TV and radio pundits who are more focused on ratings can often drift away from providing viewers information that follows a strict code of practice. We should regard those particular pundits as the entertainers they are rather than professional news journalists. But can the general public continue to have trust in the free press while it is clear there are those whose goal is to silence the free press as watchdogs for the sake of making profits or maintaining political power?

Having a free press without interference or fear of retribution facilitates the citizen’s ability to formulate their own opinions. The Internet and social media have been major game changers when used as a means of preventing the free press from meeting its goal. The Internet and social media sites has open the door to a new way to circulate and receive information and news. Unfortunately, there is little regulation or editorial standards. It has become more difficult for people to tell if stories they are reading are credible or false information. False information is news, stories or hoaxes created to deliberately misinform or deceive readers. Because these stories are created to either negatively influence people’s views, push a political agenda or cause confusion and misunderstanding, it undermines the goal of a free press and informed citizens by giving people a distorted picture of the truth.

Some will call it "fake news". But experts are now recommending avoiding the term "fake news" as it has political connotations that is often abused. Regardless of your political affiliation, informed citizens must be aware of how the term "fake news" is negatively used to automatically cast doubt against the free press. Any form of watchdog group, whistleblowers or any person performing ethical review and oversight are often seen as "the enemy" to those who deliberately misinform and deceive the public. This includes professional, respectable and ethical journalists who fulfill their purpose of warning, educating and informing the public with truth. People with ill-motives will use the term "fake news" as a broad stroke to reduce the impact of credible news.

It is common to label professional journalists upfront as "fake news". Therefore each time, in the future, when they report accurate and factual stories that may contradict lies and misinformation being told, the work by creditable journalists is automatically dismissed as being untrue. Painting the media as "the enemy" becomes dangerous because it promotes deep mistrust and an unnatural hate toward people of a particular profession. Using the term "fake news" as a political weapon weakens America’s free press. But will credible journalists be silenced?

Another means in which the general public has been informed is through presidential debates. The 1960 debate between Senator John Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon was the first time the public could watch presidential hopefuls compete on television. It was watched live by 70 million Americans. The debates turned out to be the turning point of the campaign. Polls revealed that more than half of all voters had been influenced by the debates. Today, we take these debates for granted. Before the 1960 debate. Most voters never had a chance to see candidates in a close, personal way, giving them the opportunity to form an opinion about the next president based on their looks, their voice and their opinions. Sixty-two years later, the future of presidential debates is uncertain.

The Republican National Committee announced that it has officially withdrawn from the Commission on Presidential Debates, which sponsored presidential and vice presidential debates for decades. Potential voters today are no different than those in 1960. We deserve every opportunity to learn as much about each person hoping to be president and vice president. When each method used to provide the public a true representation of facts regarding those who hold office or wish to hold office is taken away, we take another step backward and America becomes weaker.

David W. Marshall is author of the book "God Bless Our Divided America" and member of Country First. Country First is focused on recognizing that Republicans, Democrats or Independents don’t have to be enemies just because they have different experiences and perspectives. To learn more about Country First visit www.country1st.com