The freedoms of press and speech are cornerstones of any democratic society, serving as catalysts for accountability and change. In the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly safeguards these liberties: “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…” Despite these protections, recent events have tested the resilience of these rights both in the U.S. and abroad, particularly in Russia.
In Russia, the state of press freedom has dramatically declined under President Vladimir Putin’s leadership since the death of former President Gorbachev. The Frontline documentary “Putin vs. The Press” delves into the battle for independent media in Russia and focuses on Nobel Prize winner Dmitry Muratov. His paper Novaya Gazeta and many others were systematically dismantled, with journalists facing censorship, harassment, and even assassination. The war in Ukraine has intensified this suppression, as the government enforces strict control over war narratives, labeling any dissent as treasonous. This environment not only stifles political opposition but also enables human rights abuses. One of these abuses covered by Novaya Gazeta reported killings of homosexuals in Chechnya. The local Imam called his followers to the Mosque and called for a jihad against the reporter Elina Milashina and the papers entire staff. You actually take your life in your own hands when you report the news in some areas.
Conversely, the United States, often heralded as a bastion of free speech, has grappled with its own challenges. Former President Donald Trump’s frequent assaults on the free press—branding journalists as “the enemy of the people”—have eroded public trust in media institutions. Trump, much like the majority of the Republican Party has trampled on Free Speech with abandon. It is important to recognize that the suppression of speech is not solely a partisan issue. The Democrat Party has also contributed to a more restrictive environment for free expression. In this polarized climate, they often scream ‘misinformation’ when the other side disagrees with their opinions. Social media has joined this fight as the platforms have become battlegrounds for these issues, sometimes prioritizing sensationalism over substance, which on top of the ambiguity by the politicians themselves, complicates the public’s ability to make informed decisions.
The actions of these two nations underscores a universal truth: the freedom of press and speech is not absolute and requires constant vigilance. In Russia, the near-absence of these freedoms has allowed authoritarianism to flourish unchecked. In the U.S., while legal protections exist, societal, financial and political pressures have completely undermined the media’s role as a watchdog. Moreover, divisive debates over abortion and transgender rights have tested the limits of free speech in the U.S. Political factions on both sides have sought to censor opposing views, particularly in social media spaces, where “cancel culture” and de-platforming have become contentious tools for moderating speech.
This week’s investigation has been a revelation to me, there are intrepid reporters still telling the truth. I do not believe that every reporter is biased or evil, only constrained by the desires of their advertisers, government or the elite who direct most of what we see. So, what can we do to advance a liberatory ethics quest, as propounded by academic and philosopher Enrique Dussel? Using Dmitry Muratov and his team of journalists, we must relentlessly seek truth, especially when power attempts to suppress it. We should teach our media consumers to seek diverse and reliable sources of information, critically evaluating the content they engage with. As citizens, we should further look to Dussel’s teachings, so that our ethical commitment should be toward the liberation of all marginalized and oppressed groups. Together, by upholding the principles of free speech and a free press, we can foster a more just and equitable society where truth prevails over oppression and ALL have a voice.
Hello Marc,
I found your post informative and shined a unique light on the topics of this week. I appreciate that you mentioned how both right-wing (Donald Trump) and left-wing sources have contributed to why the public has low trust in media and journalism. You say “In this polarized climate, they often scream ‘misinformation’ when the other side disagrees with their opinions.” I think this is true, and why I think it’s important to have nuance and try our best to be impartial. As you end with, “Together, by upholding the principles of free speech and a free press, we can foster a more just and equitable society where truth prevails over oppression and ALL have a voice.” This is the truth of the matter for journalists everywhere. Nice post!
Hey Marc
I totally agree with your opinion on thinking that not every reporter is biased or evil. But I would like to ask, what is considered evil or even bad? Some people would say people talking about uncomfortable truths could be seen as bad journalism, but sometimes that’s exactly the type of thing that needs to be spoken about. Honestly, I think it really depends on the person viewing the material, because some people can consider a topic bad or good based on their preference. Overall, great job on this post.
The documentary is a terrible revelation of how a government can stomp out free speech. That said, your nuanced response and, can I call it, HOPE fueled by the example of Muratov’s diehard independence truth telling — cheers me right the heck up. And I need cheering.
If everyone walks out of this class with your stark conclusion firmly inscribed on cranium, I’d be thrilled. This is what you wrote: “The actions of these two nations underscores a universal truth: the freedom of press and speech is not absolute and requires constant vigilance. ”
Yes, we have the First Amendment. But oof. You are right about the control from the left and the right. (In fact, um, Putin technically represents the left as a former communist party operative. But really he’s simply a powermongering autocrat.) In the face of this free-speech challenge, you propose a three-point plan for media makers (seek truth and be brave), for consumers (promote media literacy and feisty nuanced thinking) and liberatory activism: “As citizens, we should further look to Dussel’s teachings, so that our ethical commitment should be toward the liberation of all marginalized and oppressed groups. Together, by upholding the principles of free speech and a free press, we can foster a more just and equitable society where truth prevails over oppression and ALL have a voice.”
Mostly, I simply want everyone to read your blog. If you edit it a bit, it would be an excellent op-ed for regional or national publication.
Spread the word, Marc.
Thanks for your post.
Deidre
Hey Marc, your post was very well written and you weaved all the concepts together nicely. In your conclusion you wrote “ I do not believe that every reporter is biased or evil, only constrained by the desires of their advertisers, government or the elite who direct most of what we see.” I think this is a great summary of what we see. And you ended your post very strong! Thank you!
Hello Marc, I enjoy how your post brings attention to the parallels between the erosion of press freedom in Russia and the challenges we’re facing here in the U.S. It’s eye-opening to consider that even in a country like ours, with the First Amendment’s strong protections, political and social forces can undermine the media’s role as a watchdog.
Your example of Dmitry Muratov and his courageous team in Russia really drives home the importance of ethical journalism, especially when truth itself is under attack. The connection to Enrique Dussel’s “liberatory ethics” is so relevant—journalism should indeed be a force for the liberation of marginalized voices and a defense against authoritarianism. Your point about how we, as media consumers, have a role to play by seeking out diverse, reliable sources is key.
I really enjoyed how you worked your way through all the issues happening and tied it up in a nice bow. It really encompassed both of the countries involved and the issues we have and will hopefully not continue to have. I like how you pointed to the positive side of journalism and how not all of it is bad. It’s easy to see the other side so I was refreshed to see the opposite view. I also wanted to point out how you talked about cancel culture and how it relates to free speech.
Thank you for your new ideas!!!!
Your post offers a comprehensive look into the global landscape of press freedom, and I appreciate how you connect the struggles in Russia with the nuanced challenges here in the U.S. The way you highlighted Dmitry Muratov and Novaya Gazeta’s courageous fight for truth amidst life-threatening danger brings a powerful reminder of what real journalistic integrity entails. I also agree with your observation on the limitations journalists face, even in democratic societies. The influence of advertisers, governments, and powerful elites does create a barrier, making it clear that press freedom needs active defense. Great work!