Jim Acosta, a White House correspondent for CNN just
lost his hard pass for the White House, a turn against
Press Freedom in America.
“In an era when many assumptions about communication and
information are being reconsidered, it is difficult to
say exactly what journalists can or should be free from.
A better question to ask might be, ‘How is the networked
press — journalists, software engineers, algorithms,
relational databases, social media platforms, and
quantified audiences — creating separations and
dependencies that enable a public right to hear, make
some publics more likely than others, and move beyond an
image of the public as whatever journalists assume it to
be?’
-Mike Ananny
#Ineedpressfreedom.
A simple hashtag. A simple concept … right?
Not so fast.
According to dictonary.com, Freedom of the Press is “the right to publish newspapers,
magazines, and other printed matter without governmental
restriction and subject only to the laws of libel,
obscenity, sedition, etc.”
Take a step back.
In the age of social media, data scrubbing and
networks, “press” and “freedom” are not the simple and idealistic
prospects they once were; and to protect them, journalists
have to be pragmatic in defining what exactly press freedom
is, and what they are free from.
Note from picture above: Jim Acosta lost his press
credential for the White House Wednesday after a heated
exchange with the President of the U.S. In this tweet, he is
attempting to get back in to finish his reporting duties
– this shows that #ineedpressfreedom is needed around
the world — and here in America.
The US Secret Service just asked for my credential to
enter the WH. As I told the officer, I don’t blame him. I
know he’s just doing his job. (Sorry this video is not
rightside up)
pic.twitter.com/juQeuj3B9R
According to the blog post, which was written by
USC Annenberg assistant professor Mike Ananny
“instead of being seen as a holdover from a time that no
longer exists, press freedom could be viewed as a powerful
framework for arguing why and how the networked press could
change.”
This, to me, means the freedom of the press is not a static
philosophy that is decided by journalists and members of the
media elite, but an evolving thought process, that needs to
be tended and updated regularly.
Not only does it need to be melded to fit the technology of
the day, however, but the cultural and societal nuances of
each country and region.
This, to me, is an important note for the global journalism
community. The Press Freedom of the First Amendment is a
particular brand of freedom that has been cultivated and
tested for nearly 200 years. It has been fine-tuned to the
nuances of a Western society, and that Press Freedom cannot
be cut and pasted into different regions around the world —
without a bit of tending and customization.
“Instead of being seen as a holdover from a time that no
longer exists, press freedom could be viewed as a powerful
framework for arguing why and how the networked press could
change,” Ananny said.
So press freedom, again, is not a set forth and decided
doctrine in and of itself. The First Amendment is a helpful
starting point, but it traps the field of communication
studies in a narrow bind when trying to safeguard and
replicate freedom of the press in various locations.
“The dominant, historical, professionalized image of
press freedom — as whatever journalists say they need to
be free from to pursue self-evident public interest —
privileges an individual right to speak over a public
right to hear. It confuses journalists’ freedom to
publish with publics’ rights to hear what they need to
hear in order to sustain themselves as publics—to
realize the inextricably shared conditions under which
they live, discover and debate their similarities and
differences, devise solutions to predicaments, insulate
themselves from harmful forces and nurture contrarian
viewpoints, recognize the resources that hold them
together, and reinvent themselves through means other
than the rational, informational models of citizenship
that dominate the traditional mythology of U.S. press
freedom.”