In the current changing news media climate, it’s important to be reminded of the important role that a free “press” plays in our democracy.
Such an example was provided this week by the Army officers in charge at Fort Bragg, N.C.
After former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced plans to include a stop at Fort Bragg on her current book tour, officials at the fort grew concerned that her appearance might provide a forum that included verbal attacks on President Barack Obama. Their solution to this dilemma? Bar media coverage of the event.
“Fort Bragg, nor any other Army installation, cannot be used or appear to be used as an endorsing criticism of the commander in chief,” said base spokesman Thomas D. McCollum. “Because this book signing is turning into a political platform with the addition of media coverage, we are restricting the media coverage.”
Army officials seemed to be acknowledging that, by allowing Palin at the fort, they may have created a situation that would get them into trouble. So, instead of canceling the event or placing restrictions on Palin, they decided the safest thing would be to simply ban the news media. Their thinking apparently was that if something embarrassing happened, with no media on hand, at least no one would know about it.
It’s sort of like the tree falling in the woods when no one is there to hear it.
After protests were lodged by various news outlets, the Army relented and allowed the event to be covered. Palin didn’t make a formal speech at the event, but some members of the public did take advantage of their free speech rights by voicing their opposition to Obama’s policies.
Palin appeared, protests were lodged, but perhaps the most significant news coming out of this event was that representatives of the U.S. Army initially thought it was in their best interests to simply bar news media from a public event. They reached this conclusion not because of any national security concern, but because they were afraid that coverage of the event might reflect poorly on them, the Army or the nation.
Obviously, in a democracy that prohibits “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” that isn’t a good enough reason. In America, those rights most often are championed by professional news media who seek to uphold the public’s right to know what their government is up to.
The Fort Bragg incident reminds us that, even as America’s news media evolve, we as a nation, must make sure their watchdog role isn’t lost.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
The more coverage of Palin the better, even at relatively friendly venues like military bases. The more people see her, the less they will like her (among thinking people, anyway.)
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Remember the howls of indignation during the campaign when Obama was assailed for "politicizing" a visit to a military base? Curious there has not been a similar outcry about Ms. Palin's attempts to revive her political career by visiting Ft. Hood during her book tour.
zstoltenberg (anonymous) says…
I think the heading of the article was mis-stated. I think what they meant to say was "Government Lapdogs."
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"the U.S. Army initially thought it was in their best interests to simply bar news media from a public event. They reached this conclusion not because of any national security concern, but because they were afraid that coverage of the event might reflect poorly on them, the Army or the nation."
Alternatively, military officials were attempting to comply with the prohibition against using military installations for partisan political purposes. In my opinion their capitulation has reflected poorly on those decision makers and the Army. And, of course, we share as a nation in the shame of as unqualified and unworthy an individual as Ms. Palin being considered a viable political candidate. Bozo points out that thinking people will recoil at increased exposure to her. The problem, of course, is that members of that group of citizens appears to be shrinking and those who are not members gaining rapidly.
By the way, the main point of the editorial was, oh let's say, interesting. Encouraging, I suppose, that someone at the LJW appears to understand the media's role as watchdog. But I am curious, has there been a recent example of the LJW functioning in that role? More like chief cheerleader for the chamber of commerce, in my experience.
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
Problem is, the media refuse to take their jobs seriously, and thus fewer people feel that the media should be taken seriously. Doesn't matter whether it's the LJW or CNN--when outlets refuse to cover important stories or aspects of stories, and instead pretend that cheap junk content like Glenn Beck or the forums on this site are "news" items or "discussion," it should be no surprise that news organizations and their employees are not treated like serious reporters, since many, if not most, of MSM's reporters, stories, sets, and production values cannot be distinguished from entertainment coverage. If the media step up and start taking their responsibilities seriously, maybe it will be harder for anyone, including the army, to deny them access, but it's easier to justify banning an entertainment reporter than it is a "news" reporter.
Want to be treated like a serious player? Start acting like one.
Keith (anonymous) says…
This bit of editorializing is absolutely hilarious coming from a newspaper that never seems to find any wrongdoing in government affairs in its own community. Any corruption or malfeasance is always somewhere distant, like Junction City.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
uh LJWorld editorial writer:
missing from your editorial is the fact that Palin's own organization has banned the press from some book tour events before it got to Ft. Hood. why was that? well bcause the prejudiced leftists in the mainstream media purposely put down and distort the persons and perspectives of conservatives...just note Boozo-on-the-short-bus and Scott5150 above for local examples.
as noted many times before, it is hilarious to watch the crazed left go so cazy over Sarah Palin...if she's so stupid and insignificant then why so much attention from these who think that because they're liberal, they're smarter. the elitists of the left who would control your life down to what you eat and your choice of health insurance. and in the process screw over many millions of seniors and medicare/medicaid recipients.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"as noted many times before, it is hilarious to watch the crazed left go so cazy over Sarah Palin…if she's so stupid and insignificant then why so much attention from these who think that because they're liberal, they're smarter. the elitists of the left who would control your life down to what you eat and your choice of health insurance. and in the process screw over many millions of seniors and medicare/medicaid recipients."
Because, as anyone who has been paying attention has observed in the last several weeks, the mainstream corporate propaganda machine has been trumpeting her as the rising republican Presidential candidate. Many, especially those on the left, think she would be more disasterous even than gwb, so they have the audacity to highlight her shortcomings. It's patriotism, not elitism.
Choice of what you can eat. Wow, that must have escaped my attention. Examples?
Your choice of health insurance. Actually, the right wingers want that choice largely left to your employer and they only want you to have a choice of a for profit entity. A public option would introduce a true choice, but the right wingers and their insurance company masters fear that above everything. Perhaps because many would choose not to interject the profit motive in health care decisions. I would like the choice of a public option, but don't get it because of the insurance company lobby protecting their bottom line. So, which elites are really controlling our choices?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
“as noted many times before, it is hilarious to watch the crazed left go so cazy over Sarah Palin…if she's so stupid and insignificant then why so much attention"
Change Sarah Palin to Barrack Obama, see how that works out.
From various perspectives, we've had an empty cowboy hat, now an empty suit. I'm, personally, rather afraid that we'll follow the trend and nominate/elect an empty skirt. Trends seem to be pointed in that direction.
So, better question: as someone who is vitriolically opposed to the empty rhetoric, lack of experience, ideological imperative, etc. of Barrack Obama, why are You NOT afraid of Sarah Palin? Can you even answer without a barrage of meaningless partisan cliches? Try.
leedavid (anonymous) says…
This has nothing to do with "media watchdogs". Though I can see where someone that never served could arrive at this conclusion. The problem facing the commander is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) clearly states persons in uniform may not attend political activiites. So here comes Sarah Palin on a base. Press pictures of uniformed military members with Palin could be used to indicate the Army favors republicans over democrats or that the Army has problems with Obama. Palin is controversal. So the commander just thought it was better to have no media and the troops could wear what they want, say what they want and not bring the Army into the picture. I would have made the same decision. The media does not have the right to go where they want, when they want.