Yesterday was Journalism Day at Ohio University. It seems fitting, then, to review the place of journalism in society.
Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited
robust and wide-open and that it may well include vehement caustic
and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Those words are from the opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan, delivered by former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. Brennan was perhaps one of the greatest justices the court has ever seen. He delivered the opinion in the Sullivan case in 1964.
Why then, 40 years later, are we dealing with the same questions for which we already have precedent?
Now, in the name of public discussion, I will share with you an excerpt from an e-mail sent to me in response to last week's column, Justice sees very well through the blindfold: I bet you have never caught a break in this cruel
cruel world. I bet if you were caught with a gram of cocaine the authorities would whip and beat you like an old slaver because you're not a rich white man but instead a black girl... I would have said woman but no woman would write that (expletive)...your work is the work of an oppressed
resentful little girl... IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHARACTER BASH MR. RICK HARRISON WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS THEN YOUR ARE MISTAKEN. Hope your fired
long live Rick the Duke.
The e-mail's author will remain anonymous. His words have no redeeming social value but to illustrate the power of the press to elicit such a response.
Whether you agree with the author of the e-mail or not, the statement about oppression was on point.
Today, I do feel oppressed -pressured to dilute my opinions. I feel as if I must tiptoe over truths for fear of a barrage of wrathful e-mail attacks, one even with the added incentive of a racial slur.
Today, I feel forced to commit this entire column in defense of a previous column - when really, there are far more urgent things to be discussed.
Last week, because I resuscitated a conveniently forgotten issue and disclosed unfavorable public information on a well-liked administrator, I suddenly have no character.
Well, today I come with a news flash. Don't miss it this time. This nation's justice system was not installed to measure the character of , to consider the admiration of or to crumble beneath the social statuses of those who pass through it.
It was installed to judge the offense of the offender.
And the role of a journalist is not to sugar over bitter realities.
Journalism Day's keynote speaker was David Talbot, founder and editor-in-chief of Salon.com, an independent online news service. He made some good points. As a journalist, one cannot be afraid to address issues that others are afraid of touching. Some of the best journalism has been controversial and has been the target of censorship.
Happy-go-lucky journalists do have a place in the grand scheme of things. I just think that there is a lot more grimy stuff going on than anyone would care to admit. And I would rather dig into the grimy stuff.
There have been numerous respected people who, after acting unlawfully, have come under public scrutiny and have had to endure media attention.
Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error
said Brennan.
The fact is that we must learn to hold our public officials accountable. All of them. We must hold them accountable on the university level, the local level, the state level and the national level.
When we see the justice lady peeking through that blindfold, we must be quick to call her on it.
If students do not learn how to act upon the precedents of 40 years ago in holding their university officials accountable right here in Athens, they will never get it right outside of Athens.
We have three branches of government, each intended to check the others. It is the journalist's responsibility to check all three of those branches. But we all have the responsibility of checking what goes on around us. If we do not, we have sold out ourselves - and our freedoms.
Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the political conduct of officials reflect the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors. The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public requires not merely discussion
but information. Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate
Brennan added.
He was right.
Next week, moving on.
