Let's be clear: FOX News is a GOP opposition research dump more than it is a news organization. They reprint Republican press releases verbatim, they have no compunction about airing stories without having verified the information in them, they unabashedly promoted -- not covered -- the anti-Obama protests this year, and their coverage of the current president verges from mundane to absolutely deranged.
So why are reporters like Helen Thomas and Jake Tapper defending them?
I think the answer goes back to one of the most important disputes in the history of American free-speech law: the Whitney v. California case, which upheld the conviction of a Communist Party member accused of "advocating, teaching or aiding and abetting the commission of crime." In his concurring opinion, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote what is (ironically) probably the most famous legal defense of free speech in which he counsels that "the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and supposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones."
Brandeis actually had a far more restrictive view of free speech than we have today, but his point still stands: the best way to beat back lies in public discourse is with the truth. Using the force of government against the media is wrong and should make us uncomfortable even if it's just the bully pulpit. For some journalists, ignoring the administration's criticism of FOX means agreeing to be treated the same way next time one of them writes a story critical of the White House that gains traction. For them, there's a larger question of free speech -- and in journalism, such questions have often centered around less-than-reputable journalistic organizations.
Conservatives have marched out a number of outrageous straw men to argue against the White House's stance on FOX, accusing the White House of "censorship." That's not what's happening. The administration's behavior is not, as Tucker Carlson writes, the same as Ari Fleischer's threat that reporters should "watch what they say, watch what they do" -- this would be like comparing Joe Wilson's "You Lie" to the massive amount of death threats that are currently overwhelming the Secret Service. It is an attempt by the White House to delegitimize their domestic political enemies--and while we've certainly seen worse before, that doesn't mean people should unequivocally endorse what the White House is doing.
Yet the circumstances bring up another problem. If we believe that Brandeis is right, that the solution to "evil counsels is good ones," it stands to reason that it is the role of the press, not the government, to remedy FOX's propaganda. But because of years of conservative bellyaching over the "liberal" press, the media is reluctant to criticize FOX News, as though it were the only free expression available to an embattled minority. Indeed, some in the press have exaggerated the White House behavior, comparing it to that of Richard Nixon -- for some self-conscious reporters, the White House criticism of FOX is nothing more than an opportunity for a Sista Soulja moment where they can show conservatives just how much they care.
It won't matter. Conservatives have reaped incredible political dividends by attacking the press, even the very idea of a free press, and they won't stop merely because some reporters see that accepting this administration's demonization of FOX could lead to the demonization of real news organizations down the line. It is the media's job to ensure an accurate public discourse--no administration will watchdog itself. The problem is that, as it stands, much of the press is not fulfilling its role in fighting lies with truth. This is what Jacob Weisberg was advocating -- that real reporters stop legitimizing FOX. He was not endorsing censorship of any kind. He was encouraging the press to remedy bad counsels with good ones. That's not really happening.
-- A. Serwer
