Media Serve the Governors, Not the Governed
March 4, 2019
Since 2006 WikiLeaks has been censuring governments with governments' own
words. It has been doing the job the U.S. constitution intended the press to
do, says Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria
in Sydney, Australia
In his 1971 opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Hugo Black wrote: "In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free
press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our
democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The
Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would
remain forever free to censure the Government."
That's what WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have been doing since 2006:
censuring governments with governments' own words pried from secrecy by
WikiLeak's sources-whistleblowers. In other words, WikiLeaks has been doing
the job the U.S. constitution intended the press to do.
One can hardly imagine anyone sitting on today's U.S. Supreme Court writing
such an opinion. Even more troubling is the news media having turned its
back on its mission. Today they almost always serve the governors-not the
governed.
Lauria: Media serve governors-not the governed. (Cathy Vogan)
The question is why.
Consolidation of media ownership has increased obedience of desperate
journalists; entertainment divisions have taken over news departments; and
careerist reporters live vicariously through the power of those they cover,
rejecting the press' unique power to hold those officials to account.
It comes down ultimately to lifestyles. Men go to war to protect and further
their lifestyles. The press cheers them on for residual material betterment
and increase in status.
Millions of lives erased for lifestyles.
It used to be accepted in television that news departments would lose money
and would be supported by the entertainment division. That's because news
was considered a public service. TV newsmen-they were almost all men in
those days-were former wire service and newspaper reporters. But greed has
put the presenters' personalities before public service, as entertainment
masquerades as news. Newspapers have sacrificed investigative units to
maximize profit. Government is the winner.
The abdication of the mainstream media of their constitutional
responsibility to serve the governed and not the governors has left a void
filled for more than a decade by WikiLeaks.
No longer do today's Daniel Ellsbergs need to take their chances with
editors at The New York Times or The Washington Post, or with their
reporters spinning the damning information they risk their freedom to get to
the public-no matter how disinterested and distracted the public may be.
Now the traditional media can be bypassed. WikiLeaks deals in the raw
material-that when revealed-governments hang themselves with. That's why
they want Assange's head. They lust for revenge and to stop further leaks
that threaten their grip on power. That the corporate media has turned on
Assange and WikiLeaks reveals their service to the state and how much they
prioritize their style of life-disregarding the carnage they help bring
about.
In that Pentagon Papers' decision, the majority of the court ruled that the
First Amendment prohibited the government from exercising prior restraint-or
censorship-on the media before publication of classified information. But
the majority of the court also said the government could prosecute
journalists after publication.
Joe Lauria and John Pilger at Assange rally. (Tatiana Schild)
Indeed the U.S. Espionage Act, which has withstood First Amendment
challenges, criminalizes a publisher's or journalist's mere possession, as
well as dissemination, of classified material. A 1961 amendment to the Act
extended U.S. jurisdiction across the world. Assange is threatened by it.
U.S. administrations have been reluctant to take the step of
post-publication prosecution, however. Nixon did not prosecute Sen. Mike
Gravel, who was constitutionally protected when he read the Papers, given to
him by Ellsberg, into the Congressional record. But Gravel could have been
prosecuted for publishing the Papers as a book. Barack Obama decided to back
off Assange when it was plain The New York Times and other corporate media
would be as liable as Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified
information. The virulently anti-media Trump administration, however, may
take that step if Assange is arrested.
From their point of view it's easy to understand why the U.S. wants to crush
Assange. But what is Australia's excuse? Why is it fighting America's
battles? Why has the Australian mainstream media also turned against Assange
after an election held in the U.S., not here? What has happened to
Australia's sovereignty? That's a question that can be answered by
Australians coming into the streets, like today-and staying there until
their compatriot is at last free to leave that damned embassy. Free to
continue to do the job the media refuses to do.
Joe Lauria gave this speech at a rally for Julian Assange organized by the
Socialist Equality Party in Sydney on March 3 organized by the Socialist
Equality Party. You can watch the video of the speech here:
Video by Cathy Vogan
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Sunday Times of London and
numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at joelauria@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
and followed on Twitter @unjoe .
image_pdfimage_print
2266
Tags: Barack Obama Daniel Ellsberg
