Ironically, the time of the American Revolution held some of the most blatant examples of press censorship this country has seen. In 1775, colonists looking to rid America of an English presence burned a printing press owned by James Rivington, publisher of The New York Gazetteer, because he supported the English monarchy in his newspaper (James Rivington). In 1776, New York printer Samuel Loudon advertised an upcoming response to Thomas Paine’s pro-revolution pamphlet, Common Sense. Colonists looking to part from the Crown became alarmed, broke into Loudon’s home and forced him to lead them to his printing press. The group of patriots smashed Loudon’s printing plates and burned 1,500 copies of his American Advertiser newspaper (Hildeburn 154). The next morning every printer in New York found notes on their steps from the “committee of tarring and feathering” warning that “destruction, death, and perdition” would be their fate if they printed “anything against the rights and liberties of America” (Adams 56). It comes as little surprise that censorship increases during times of war, as the government looks to silence dissenting voices.
While it is less blatant, censorship of the current “War on Terrorism” shares some characteristics with Revolution-era censorship. Following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and the American public, saying “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” With those words, Bush effectively told the media to get on board with the war, or else. Those who dared critique the rush to war were attacked for having insufficient patriotism. Even Dan Rather, perhaps the most vocal journalistic patriot after the tragedy, has had second thoughts, confiding in a BBC interview that "patriotism run amok" has led to self-censorship by journalists, himself included (Jensen). This self-censorship offered little resistance to President Bush’s argument for the 2003 Iraq invasion. Despite numerous skeptics abroad, Congress signed off on the war, which is still costing Americans $12 billion each month (Studies). In addition to this de facto censorship, the government has also legally restricted newspapers from publishing information regarding the “War on Terrorism”.
In 2001, Sami al-Hajj, a Sudanese journalist for the Al-Jazeera network, was traveling to Afghanistan to film a news segment when he was captured by Pakistani soldiers. Despite holding a legitimate visa, al-Hajj was turned over to the United States government and held in Guantanamo Bay as an “enemy combatant” until 2008. During his stay in the military prison, al-Hajj made several drawings, which he named “The Sketches of My Nightmare,” that illustrate his take on the conditions at Guantanamo. The U.S. government has decided to censor those sketches, but it could not prevent cartoonist Lewis Peake from recreating the pictures from al-Hajj’s description of them (Worthington). By censoring the sketches, the government seems to be trying to suppress any opinions that may question its treatment of prisoners.
The media has an obligation to inform the public to its fullest extent. If newspapers fail to report controversial topics, the public loses a major source of information and its ability to participate in a democracy is jeopardized. An argument can be made that the media should censor issues dealing with national security, especially in times of war, but in the end the U.S. government and military represent the American public. We deserve to know if and how these powerful institutions are giving us a poor international reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment