By Hannah Mitchell
Earlier this month, a tweet stormed the internet when it claimed that four networks, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC, would no longer televise announcements from the White House. The tweet – which garnered more than 225,000 likes – stated the networks claim they are standing firm to protect the American public.
The twitter account belongs to Gerry Perlman, a sales manager for Office Depot, and has not provided any evidence to back the claim. However, it does open up the debate: Should media outlets censor the news?
In support of Perlman’s sentiment is Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, who sent a letter to the heads of CNN, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC asking them not to televise the president’s White House briefing which he calls a “platform for misinformation and disinformation.”
Major broadcast news networks, excluding Fox News, cut away from President Trump’s briefing in late March, after 20 minutes to network evening newscasts, the AP reports. Newsrooms across the country announced they would no longer give Trump unfiltered airtime. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow declared to viewers, “I would stop putting those briefings on live TV – not out of spite, but because it’s misinformation.”
Trump’s critics argue that airing briefings are a public safety issue. Using examples like the president’s comments about using disinfectants to treat COVID-19 and failing to clarify that it’s unsafe, was followed by multiple reports from health officials of patients drinking bleach to treat the virus.
The possibility that the president’s briefings would not be televised angered some viewers, who argue that the president’s speeches are alongside those of high-ranking health officials.
It leaves journalists debating the civic duty to broadcast the president’s remarks with the need to censor fabrications or supplement with fact-checking.
The solution is tricky. By limiting broadcasting the president’s messages, newsrooms border the highly-contested media issue of censorship. The news stations are making the decision for the American people on what information is appropriate for them to know. It undermines the intelligence of the American people and their ability to decide for themselves what is news worth knowing. How can they decide what is factual if we never give them the opportunity?
A journalist’s responsibility is to report the news, even when they do not agree with the message. By filtering the news, they could do significant harm by disconnecting the American people to important information about what is going on in their country.
It also begs the speculation for what is next. When will the newsrooms decide that it is time to turn back cameras toward an elected official they don’t agree with? How can Americans make informed decisions on the ballot, if they no longer know what the candidates are about?
By turning the camera off when the president’s ramblings display his shortcomings, we only benefit him by making the public less informed about what the federal government is doing – or failing to do. Imagine what one could get away with if all their critics weren’t watching?
The value in his messages are not just the solutions he offers for the virus, but in knowing how he handles this. We wouldn’t know that Trump speculated the possibility of injecting disinfectants to treat COVID-19 if we couldn’t watch his briefings. We wouldn’t know that he was pushing to reopen American businesses if we didn’t hear him say it.
There is value in the opportunity to watch the president address the American people live, without the filter of White House officials. There is value in not having his messages paraphrased and restructured through the eloquent writings of journalists nationwide.
Whether or not the tweet has any factual baring, it is an idea that is debated among journalists and the public alike. The public deserves the opportunity to watch the president’s briefing and the opportunity to turn off their TV when they don’t like it.
-30