S1 E3: Is The Free Press Still Holding Power Accountable?

SEASON 1 EPISODE 3 Is the Free Press Still Holding Power Accountable? [Title Sequence] (plays) [Clip: “JFK on the Vital Role of a Free Press”] (plays) LISA: It’s not the best of times, nor the worst, but these are undoubtedly independent times. Welcome to Independent Times, the podcast for politically homeless independent voters navigating our polarized world. I’m your host, LISA Singer, and I’m so grateful you could join us today. The Founding Fathers saw the free press as the “fourth estate,” a vital check on the powers of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. But today, that pillar is crumbling: only 16% of Americans subscribe to a newspaper, and one to two papers close every week in our nation. What does this mean for our democracy, and how can we preserve this essential safeguard? Today, we’ll uncover what’s at stake and how independents can help save the free press. Joining me are my co-hosts: award-winning journalist and host of FOX24 News Now, LEYLA Gullen, and Emmy-winning news host and producer, BRYAN Gallo. Welcome. BRYAN: Great to be here, LISA. This is critical for independents navigating today’s media chaos. LEYLA: Absolutely, LISA. The free press is democracy’s backbone, but it’s under pressure. I’m excited to unpack this. LISA: I'm so glad you could both join us. LEYLA, can you give us a crash course on the First Amendment's Free Press Clause? LEYLA: Sure, let me grab my pocket Constitution… “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” BRYAN: Adorable that you carry that, LEYLA. LEYLA: My dad gave it to me as a kid! James Madison wrote the First Amendment, and he saw a free press as a shield against tyranny. Benjamin Franklin said, “When freedom of speech is taken away, tyranny is erected on its ruins.” Very wise words. Thomas Jefferson called an informed citizenry the heart of democracy. LISA: But things got messy early, right, BRYAN? Or am I remembering incorrectly? BRYAN: No, no, you know what you're doing, Lisa. The press was never perfect. Take Jefferson, he loved it until 1802, when the Richmond Recorder exposed his affair with Sally Hemings, an enslaved woman at Monticello, and claimed he fathered her kids. Federalist papers pounced, printing cartoons to smear him. Jefferson called newspapers “polluted,” saying, “Nothing can now be believed in them.” That scandal split the press into partisan camps, which resonate today. LISA: It’s ironic that Jefferson was a champion of the free press, but when his own bad behavior was exposed, he was suddenly willing to burn it all down. And that love-hate relationship between politicians and the press never really went away — here’s a quick montage of the battle through the years.” [Clip: “Press vs. Politicians – The Eternal Tug-of-War”] (plays) LISA: That clip really shows the battle in action. It's the constant struggle that constant tug of war between those in power and those trying to hold them accountable. LEYLA, what are some of the most powerful examples you can think of that show why a free press is the only way we can avoid only hearing the government’s version of events? LEYLA: Well, independents want facts, not spin. Investigative journalism it provides raw data to hold officials accountable. For example, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, I think we’ve all heard their names before, uncovered the Watergate scandal in the 1970s in a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and obstruction of justice, which ultimately led to his resignation. LISA: Let’s go ahead and take a look back at the time when the world first learned what those two Washington Post reporters had uncovered. [Clip: “Woodward & Bernstein Expose Watergate”] (plays) LISA: If you haven't seen it, I also suggest checking out the 2022 TV series Gaslit, starring Julia Roberts and Sean Penn, which delves into an even darker part of the Watergate story. It’s incredibly well done. I want to add that while many people view the free press as just another business, the Watergate scandal reminds us it's the "Fourth Estate"—a crucial check on power. Without it, we'd only have the government's side of the story, as we saw with Nixon. The shadow of that scandal still hangs over our politics, which is why terms like John Oliver's "Stupid Watergate" are used to describe modern absurdities. It’s glorious. And here’s the clip that gave us that perfect phrase. [Clip: “John Oliver Coins 'Stupid Watergate”] (plays) LISA: I think we could all agree that the fight between journalists and politicians is still raging. Watergate showed us the press’s power, but today, new laws are making it harder for reporters to do their jobs. LEYLA, can you share some specific examples of how these restrictions are hitting journalists? LEYLA: But in 2023, Florida introduced bills that would weaken journalistic protections, making it easier to sue reporters over anonymous sources. In 2023, Texas passed laws that limit public records access, which will hinder investigative reporting. It chokes off the whole purpose of being an investigative journalist. LISA: Let’s have a listen to how Florida and Texas local news are reporting on these new information restrictions. [Clip: “Florida’s 2023 Laws That Chill Journalism] (plays) LISA: That’s chilling, LEYLA. These state-level restrictions are piling up, and when you add in the escalating attacks from politicians calling the press “fake news” or worse, it feels like the free press is under growing pressure to perform. To understand how we got here, we should look back at the historical laws that have tried to limit the press over time. BRYAN, what are some key laws that limited the free press still on the books or from our past that independents should know about? BRYAN: That’s a good question. The first law to limit the free press was the Sedition Act of 1798, which targeted newspapers critical of President Adams. That federal law expired but exposed the press’s vulnerability early on in our country. Then we have the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1918, passed under Democrat President Wilson. These laws were incredibly broad, making it a crime to say or publish anything disloyal or profane about the U.S. government, the Constitution, the military, or even the flag; during wartime, it was forbidden to criticize the flag. They effectively curbed anti-war reporting and dissent. Thousands were prosecuted, and many jailed, for expressing critical views during WWI. The Espionage Act of 1917 itself remains on the books today. It's primarily used to prosecute government officials or whistleblowers who leak classified information, rather than journalists directly for their reporting. But it was notably used in the prosecution of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for publishing classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents leaked by Chelsea Manning. You remember this? LISA: Here’s a montage I put together tracing the 14-year Julian Assange story — from Chelsea Manning’s leaks all the way through the Espionage Act charges and his eventual release. [Clip: “Julian Assange and the Espionage Act Danger”] (plays) Brian: But like many journalists, I believe that Assange's case sets a dangerous precedent for journalists on what could happen if they publish classified information provided by a whistleblower. You know what I mean? LISA: I definitely know what you mean, but I mean I think we can all agree it's a very difficult balance to strike. And we definitely need national security. This is a big dangerous world. But we also need to make sure that those in power in the military, for example, are not breaking the law either. And journalists need to access that information. Leila, what protections do journalists have? And I understand that the Assange case complicates this question. LEYLA: Yeah, it does. Well, we have the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, passed under President Carter. This law largely shields journalists from government searches and seizures of "work product" (like notes, photos, or recordings) and other information intended for public dissemination. Instead of a search warrant, which allows immediate seizure, it generally requires law enforcement to use a subpoena. This gives journalists time to challenge the request in court and protect their work, including confidential sources which many of them have to tell the story. But it’s got exceptions, for example, if a journalist is suspected of say committing a crime themselves, or if there's an immediate threat to life then journalists should not publish the story. Overall, this act helps ensure that reporting can happen without undue government interference, so that is something independents who want accountability should absolutely care about. LISA: But then the journalists are risking a lot because they have to expose that corruption. That corruption has to come to light in the government, in the military, in the business sector. But again, the 1980 Privacy Protection Act only goes so far, and it's expensive to fight if you're going to get sued, let's say, by the president of the United States. And today, there seems to be an explosion of independent media outlets, and this could really cripple them. Not everybody has the money of the Washington Post or the New York Times. So speaking of the courts and the law, what about the Supreme Court cases to protect journalism? There have to be other protections for them. Brian, what are the key Supreme Court cases to protect journalism? BRYAN: Well, two landmark Supreme Court cases are critical for understanding today’s media lawsuits, as they’re often referenced in headlines about press freedom. First, New York Times v. United States. The Court in 1971 ruled that the Nixon administration could not block The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which were classified documents revealing the Vietnam War’s mismanagement. LISA: That was a very complicated and painful period in America. So, to fill in that part of history, let’s take a look back at Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, on why he risked everything. [Clip: “Pentagon Papers – New York Times v. United States (1971)”] (plays) BRYAN: Those papers contradicted public statements by the government. This decision strengthened the press’s role in exposing critical truths, ensuring the public’s right to know. Second, New York Times v. Sullivan. This 1964 case established the quote-unquote “actual malice” standard for libel lawsuits by public officials. To win, officials must prove a news outlet published false information knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. This ruling protects journalists from frivolous lawsuits, allowing them to criticize public figures without fear of retaliation. LISA: Let’s review what led up to the moment the Supreme Court announced the ‘actual malice’ standard that still protects journalists today. I put together a montage of the long history, which I don’t think most people are aware of its connection to the civil rights movement. [Clip: “New York Times v. Sullivan – The 'Actual Malice' Shield (1964)”] (plays) LEYLA: So Journalists need both protections to publish hard truths but be protected from frivolous and expensive lawsuits. Both are vital, but Sullivan faces challenges, with some justices and Mr. Trump allies, are pushing to weaken it. President Trump has repeatedly called for “opening up” libel laws to sue media more easily. LISA: He said it over and over on the campaign trail — here’s just one of those times.” [Clip: “Trump Calls for 'Opening Up' Libel Laws”] (plays) LISA: Well I definitely will be looking out for references that I see to the New York Times vs. Sullivan as it sounds like it is under threat and might be limited in scope by the current Supreme Court. So we will see. We will definitely watch that space. LISA: BRYAN, LEYLA, thank you! LEYLA: Thanks for having me. BRYAN: Thanks, LISA. Always a pleasure. LISA: We are going to close with our Independent Hero of the Week: The American Journalism Project. In an age where so many local newsrooms are struggling, the American Journalism Project invests in nonprofit news organizations, providing them with the business support, training, and resources they need to become sustainable. To learn more about their work, you can visit their website at theajp.org. Here’s a note from their CEO Sarabeth Berman. [Clip: “American Journalism Project CEO Sarabeth Berman on Saving Local News”] (plays) LISA: What a fantastic discussion today! Thank you, BRYAN and LEYLA. Thank you to our listeners for joining our community at Independent Times, where politically homeless voters like you find clarity in a polarized world. You’re not alone in this journey. Next time, we’ll dive into a challenge we all face: navigating today's media landscape when trust is at a record low. We'll explore the real-world consequences of that low trust and, more importantly, what you can do about it to find the truth for yourself. You won’t want to miss it. Until then, please take a moment to follow, like, subscribe, share, and keep charting your own path.