Deer In Headlines II
By Gery Deer
It’s one thing to feel your job is in danger—industries evolve, businesses close, and livelihoods shift. It’s another thing to fear that your work and profession could be criminalized. For those of us in the press, in my opinion, that moment has arrived.
Not long ago, journalists were considered the fourth estate, so-called because the press was seen as the fourth, unofficial, branch of government – the public’s eyes and ears, so to speak. A free press is a necessary check on power, the watchdogs of democracy. Today, Trump and company would rather call any of us who dare question them troublemakers, agitators—enemies of the people. And now, with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the White House’s ban on the Associated Press (AP), we stand on the edge of something far more dangerous than a bruised ego or a contentious press conference.
The justification? National security – as always. A vague, malleable excuse that’s nearly impossible to challenge or verify. Too convenient to ignore, too broad to oppose. It sets a precedent with sharp teeth. If AP can be barred, who’s next? The Washington Post, Reuters, or maybe any reporter who dares ask uncomfortable questions?
When a government moves to silence journalism, it isn’t just about limiting press access—it’s about controlling the public’s perception of facts. A free press must do more than inform; it should hold power accountable on behalf of the citizenry. That accountability is inconvenient, even infuriating, for those who prefer not to be held accountable for their actions.
We don’t have to delve deeply into history to see what happens when dissenting voices are silenced. Totalitarian regimes have long understood the value of controlling the narrative. In Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, ensured that only state-approved messaging reached the public. In Stalinist Russia, independent journalism became synonymous with treason. And now, in a supposed beacon of freedom, we find ourselves edging toward a similar state.
Perhaps some believe these measures are justified—that journalism has gone too far and biased reporting warrants a firm correction. Some might even argue that disinformation (a great deal of which originates with the White House) has muddied the waters so thoroughly that restricting the press helps protect the public from chaos. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether we like the press—it’s whether we need it. And if those in charge are willing to erase dissent under the guise of security, we may not have much time left to answer.
The implications go well beyond a single news outlet losing access or presidential attempts to discredit them. If a major institution like the Associated Press can be barred from the White House, and with Supreme Court approval, every journalist in America faces the same risk.
What happens when smaller, independent outlets push too hard? What happens when investigative reporters publicize facts surrounding corruption at the highest levels? This is how truth becomes dictated rather than discovered. This is how governments rewrite history while the present unfolds in silence.
The press has never been perfect—it has biases, it makes mistakes, and yes, sometimes it gets the story wrong. But journalism, at its core, is a profession based on the pursuit of facts. A reporter’s job is not to flatter or cater to power, but to question, to dig, to expose injustice and demand answers.
Our democracy was built on the idea that those in power answer to the people, not the other way around. That principle is maintained through open discourse, through transparency, through a press that is free to ask uncomfortable questions and uncover uncomfortable truths. Of course, that’s not how Trump sees it. He doesn’t answer to you or me – only to his donors.
Still, the president can boot them out of the West Wing, but he can’t stop them from reporting – yet. If we allow this moment to pass unchallenged, accepting that barring journalists is just another policy decision, we lose the foundation of informed democracy set in place under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Once the press is muzzled, once silence replaces scrutiny, and propaganda overshadows fact, there’s no telling what comes next.
Supplemental Information:
(Courtesy https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/)
The First Amendment Defined
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects what are commonly known as The Five Freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. The amendment is one of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 1791.
The First Amendment Reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Source: National Archives)
This amendment gives Americans the right to express themselves verbally and through publication without government interference. It also prevents the government from establishing a “state” religion and from favoring one religion over others. And finally, it protects Americans’ rights to gather in groups for social, economic, political, or religious purposes; sign petitions; and even file a lawsuit against the government. (Source: History.com)
Vance Luther Boelter, the man accused of assassinating the top Democrat in the Minnesota House, as he was arrested late Sunday. (Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office via AP)
The Jamestown Comet 