Freedom of the Press cannot be abridged in any way by government in any incarnation. That's the beginning of it all, and the end of it all. Without that freedom, there is no possibility of a meaningful commitment to the pursuit of truth by reporters and editors, or of a commitment to excellence by publishers and owners.

The familiar threats to this glorious protection are like blunt instruments -- deadly in their aim and potentially lethal in their destructive capabilities. They are generally easy to identify, hard to camouflage: a law here, a court decision there. A little courage (and a lot of money), plus some good lawyers, and we have a real shot to stand off the enemy.

But the head-on attacks of the Nixon-Mitchell era seem to be slowly giving way to the subtler viruses of manipulation -- the endless, so carefully staged photo opportunities, the attack political ads on television, and what seems to me an epidemic of government lying.

Robert Gates can't remember anything. Clarence Thomas has no opinion on abortion. President Bush says race played no role in his decision to nominate Thomas to the Supreme Court. Just for openers. And I can't detect much righteous indignation over these lies.

Don't they represent at least as serious a threat to excellence, to truth, as an attempt to abridge our freedom through legislation? Isn't lying a way for the government to abridge our freedom, legally? Why don't we get sore?

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe