Kucinich: The president and the press

Is the media biased? Inherently, if the word “bias” encompasses the reality that news reports come from a wheelhouse of invested subjectivity.

Media organizations and the people who work for them may be wrong, unfair and outrageous, but upholding the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech is fundamental to democratic process and the free flow of information. 

{mosads}It is also a responsibility of the oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In Sullivan v. the New York Times, 1964, the Supreme Court found that public officials have literally no claim for libel or defamation by the press, even if what is published is false, unless a high standard of actual malice can be demonstrated. 

Therefore, given its protected status, the press has a responsibility to maintain integrity through honest coverage and to refrain from fabrications, which compromise the value of free speech and undermine the spirit of the First Amendment.

There is a crisis in journalism. The 24-hour news cycle brings more entertainment than news. The press notoriously leads public opinion, often in the wrong direction, such as in its promotion of illegal wars and adoption of an enemy-creating narrative, rather than factual analysis.

The current occupant of the Oval Office may take scant comfort, but volumes have been written cataloguing harsh, personal criticism of every president.

Years ago, while a copy boy at the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, during breaks I would go to the newspaper’s library and read old microfilm news accounts of President Lincoln from the early 1860s.

It was shocking to read the brutal, demeaning words then describing a man who is now known as one of our greatest leaders. 

Doris Kearns Goodwin assessment of Harold Holzer’s portrait of Lincoln’s press relations is noteworthy:  “Lincoln believed that ‘with public sentiment nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.’ ”

There is a breach in the reciprocal relationship between the press and the president. No president in memory has engaged in such an open, contentious, distracting, brick-bat conflict with the press corps, from day one, as has the current one. 

That some of the media’s treatment of this president has been savage is indisputable. Viciousness has no redemptive qualities and, when directed towards an individual who lacks restraint, can be interpreted as incitement.

How much better served our president and the nation would be, if he ignored the condemnation and focused instead on his self-proclaimed effort to “make America great again.”

A president has an unlimited means of communication to respond to the content of any report, without characterizing the reporter, the news organization or its leadership. 

The new administration must familiarize itself with the philosophy of First Amendment law, and its history, so as to understand the legal limits of White House principals’ attempts to impede or restrain criticism by the media.

The administration’s aggressive attacks on media organizations and individual reporters and news executives may be self-gratifying, but they are ultimately self-defeating and could bring about a premature end to the term of the incumbent.

When our president vigorously attacks individual reporters and news executives necessitating increased attention to their personal security, that is an abuse of executive power.

When our president promotes a video that superimposes a network logo on a wrestling-match foil, it may be funny to some, but the subtext unmistakably calls down physical violence on the media. That is an abuse of executive power.

When our president threatens a corporate merger unless a news executive is ousted, that crosses a legal line and puts him at risk of charges of the high crime of extortion.

While an administration has the responsibility to question communication company mergers, doing it for narrow, personal reasons is illegal.

Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries, circa 1765, set forth the guiding principles of the First Amendment:

“To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government.”

If our chief executive can move from a self-destructive, unpresidential tit-for-tat to a presidential understanding and acceptance of the role of a free press, it could protect his presidency.

Former Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio) served eight terms in the House from 1997 to 2013. He is also a contributor to Fox News.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.