Over the weekend, the Trump Administration had some interesting discussions with and about the press. First, talking at CIA headquarters on Saturday, President Trump remarked that he is in a “war” with reporters, who are the “most dishonest human beings on Earth.” Later that same day, his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, accused the media of “shameful and wrong” reporting on the unbigly audience sizes at the inauguration. And, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Trump Senior Advisor Kellyanne Conway not only spoke of “alternative facts” about the inauguration’s audience size but also included a pretty blatant threat to journalist Check Todd:
As an American, I want to give our President the benefit of the doubt. However, this treatment of the press is deplorable and worrisome. And, sadly, it doesn’t appear to be new to Trump and the Trump campaign.
Journalists are critical for the functioning of our political system. As the Pew Research Center remarked over a decade ago:
And, unfortunately, being a journalist is a difficult and often dangerous job. In 2016, for example, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported that there were 48 journalists killed in 2016 as a result of their work. Recent work by Anita R. Gohdes and Sabine C. Carey shows that harm to journalists is a harbinger of country-level deteriorations of human rights. As they report:
It could be easy to see violence towards journalists as a phenomenon that happens only outside of the United States or other advanced democracies. The Trump Administration’s comments are just hot air, right? Journalists shouldn’t be in danger here. Well, unfortunately, the United States and other democracies are precisely where journalists have the highest likelihood of being killed. Victor Asal, Matthew Krain, Brandon Kennedy, and I have forthcoming work at Foreign Policy Analysis where we examine the factors that led to journalist killings. Remarkably, we find that democracy does not make journalists safer. Instead:
In short, our piece finds that journalists are more frequently killed in democracies, typically by non-state actors. Journalists in the United States, like journalists in other democratic regimes, are at an increased risk of harm due to the investigative journalism that often accompanies democratic freedoms. Although the state is rarely the perpetrator, government actions that denigrate journalists could embolden non-state actors to use violence against journalists.
Journalism is important and journalist safety needs to be a priority. The Trump Administration’s actions do not bode well for the safety of journalists. And, harm to journalists could imply future harm to us all.
This is an interesting and timely discussion, thank you. 1 question though regarding your upcoming article in FPA: I imagine it’s countries in the process of democratization or reversing prior gains in which journalism is “more” dangerous rather than full fledged democracies with extensive civil and political rights/liberties?
Hi Tobias, We tried to find evidence of “more murder in the middle” but didn’t find much. It was the Polity 2 6 to 10 countries that appeared to be driving the result (the article should be ungated now). I don’t think we tried any interaction between physical integrity rights and democracy but physical integrity rights itself works like you would predict: better physical integrity rights reduces the likelihood of journalist killings. The thing is, of course, that not all full democracies have perfect human rights (and some have pretty abysmal human rights). Would love to chat more! ~Amanda
Amanda, Thank you for the prompt reply! I’ll go ahead and check out the article. Based on your initial post I thought it was somewhere in the R&R phase. My own work looks at the efficacy of populist social movements (those particularly aimed at the foreign policy status quo of a country, think Britain’s Leave campaign) based on – among other factors – the public and social media landscape of the country. To be fair I’m taking a more structural view on “journalism” and it’s impacts on populism but the idea of physical integrity rights is an interesting wager to keep in mind. I’ll make sure to check out your article! – Tobias
Thanks! I’ll look for your work, too!
Yes to this: “However, this treatment of the press is deplorable and worrisome. And, sadly, it doesn’t appear to be new to Trump and the Trump campaign.” To which we should add, “nor is it new to 21st century America, particularly where the most recent occupant of the White House is concerned.” It was the Obama Administration who did, after all, conduct what is referred to as “a war on whistleblowers” via the Espionage Act and utilized it against journalists who worked with them as well. To understand what Trump is doing, we have to understand the context that was created by his predecessors, and Obama is critical in that history. It is also imperative that academics in their research and in their teaching, whether intentionally or not, *not* give Obama a pass in this area in particular.
For references see Columbia Journalism Review’s article: https://www.cjr.org/criticism/barack_obamas_press_freedom_legacy.php
The Committee To Protect Journalists article dealing with the transition from Obama to Trump: (https://cpj.org/blog/2016/12/transition-to-trump-what-obamas-freedom-of-informa.php
Finally, CPJ’s report on Obama’s record as of 2013 (“scathing” in the words of Glenn Greenwald): https://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveillance-post-911.php