Episode 98: The Loss of Press Freedom with Professor Rebecca Hamilton

Disclaimer Unedited AI Transcript

Larry (00:07):

You are listening to specifically for Seniors, a podcast designed for a vibrant and diverse senior community. I'm your host, Dr. Larry Barsh Join me in a lineup of experts as we discuss a wide variety of topics that will empower, inform, entertain, and inspire as we celebrate the richness and wisdom of this incredible stage of life.

Larry (00:41):

Dictators hate a free press. Victor Orban and Hungary built his own media universe while simultaneously dismantling the free press. The Nazis during World War II smashed printing presses of opposition newspapers. One of Donald Trump's first actions was to dictate who would cover him in the White House and on Air Force. One, he refused to allow the associated press admittance to press briefings, social media, and press giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, control, or rather eliminate control. Over two truthfulness of content placed on Facebook and X Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, stated he will not print opinions that oppose his subservience to Donald Trump.

Larry (01:43):

My guest today on specifically for seniors is Rebecca Hamilton. Rebecca is a professor of law at American University, Washington College of Law. Her research and teaching focus is on national security, law, technology, international law, and criminal law. Her scholarship draws on her experience in the prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court, as well as her journalism background, including work in conflict zones as a foreign correspondent for Washington Post. She's the author of Fighting for Deaf four Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide, which analyzes citizen activism and the effort to stop mass atrocities. Welcome to specifically for Seniors Beck.

Rebecca Hamilton (02:44):

Thank you, Larry. It's a pleasure to join you.

Larry (02:48):

Rebecca, can we start right at the beginning with the issue surrounding a free press? The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees several fundamental rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Donald Trump seems to be trampling all of these freedoms, not only by his words, but also by executive actions. Students who have voiced opposition to various policies at universities have been taken into custody by massed federal agents and have had visas. Rescinded. Voice of America has been shutted. The education department has been gutted, funding of universities has been canceled, and NPR and PBS are under threat. Trump is violating a basic premise of the Constitution he swore to uphold. How could this happen?

Rebecca Hamilton (03:52):

That is <laugh>, that is, that is a question that I think the answer goes to all of us in the sense that Donald Trump, candidate Trump, and previously during the first his first term, president Trump has always been clear about his total disrespect for constitutional norms that have been upheld over the course of, of decades. And part of it is, I think there was a unwillingness to really take him seriously at his word when he said that he was going to do these things that he has gone ahead and done. And part of it is a, I think as, as Americans, we are often accustomed to thinking that surely these horrors that we see in, in autocratic societies abroad can't happen here, that somehow we're immune to this because we have this storied constitution and, and history. And, and, you know, we should be clear when we say that that is a a story that has only ever been upheld for some portions of American society. But nonetheless, I think the, the foundational narrative of American exceptionalism is very deeply ingrained. And it has made it hard, I think, for a lot of the public to really absorb the threat that this man poses to a constitutional democracy. And to really understand that this is real. This is actually happening now. Democracy is under threat. And this is, this is the moment that if we're going to fight for, for democracy, it has to happen now.

Larry (05:48):

And how, how, not only not only that of, of Trump's actions, but how dangerous is the control of media ownership by a few select billionaires, Jeff Bezo, Zuckerberg Musk.

Rebecca Hamilton (06:07):

Mm. Very dangerous. And I, you know, I think as your introduction sort of spoke to, there's a fundamental connection between a free press and the public getting access to information about what their government is doing and democracy. And Donald Trump is not an idiot about that. Right? He understands that the way that people get their information is deeply connected to the decisions that they make about their government. And so anytime that you have this narrowing of space for free and independent reporting about government action then you are directly attacking the basis for democratic decision making. So I think it's, it's very troubling. And, you know, this didn't start with this Trump administration. It didn't even start with the first Trump administration. There has over the past 20 years been a consolidation of media outlets in the hands of a comparatively few owners. The move to digital news was deeply disruptive for the media industry, and we're still seeing the ways that that is playing out. Some of it has been positive, a lot of it has been negative but it has reshaped the entire ecosystem for how we get information and the vulnerabilities that it has created. I think we're now seeing the democratic impact of, of those vulnerabilities and of the shrinking of the information space.

Larry (07:54):

And that's amplified by the fact that many people get all their news from social media.

Rebecca Hamilton (08:03):

Yes. And you know, the surveys that we've seen on this really pretty <laugh> pretty terrifying for those of us that grew up in a world where that was not the case. It's, it's certainly required a revisiting of assumptions about the way that people get used. You know, again, there are some, some pluses and some minuses of that. But one of the deep minuses is that we risk just hearing from the viewpoint of people that we already agree with. And that is a key risk for a democracy, because in order to make good decisions in a democracy we need to be able to understand what is the situation for people across all of society. And if we are only hearing one perspective or one viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is accurate, right? Now there are of course, a lot of instances of social media where whatever viewpoint you're being given is based on information that is not accurate. And so that further compounds the problem.

Larry (09:09):

Yeah. And Trump has frequently denounced the press as fake news calling for Comcast to be investigated for treason. Journalists are facing threats to their safe, to their safety, to their physical safety, all of this making independent reporting harder while extolling the virtues of those who cooperate with him. This is not a free press.

Rebecca Hamilton (09:38):

Right? And this is these systemic trends that we are seeing are really, really concerning. Because when you make it that difficult and ultimately that dangerous for journalists to report in a free and fair manner then the harms extend to the entirety of the population that is information that the public is not getting, that the public needs in order to make good decisions about the state of, of the society that they live in. And you know, Donald Trump is an interesting character in the sense that he has very congenial relationships with, with a number of journalists. But he sees them simply as sort of his p personal PR machine. So you are in his circle and and liked by him if you are espousing his views and the views that align with his administration. But you've seen the way he, he just berates journalists in public who dare to question the the ways that he is putting state power to use. So there's this fundamental failure to recognize that, that the very point of a free press is to have people in the room when not all of us as members of the public can be in that room. That we have people in the room on our behalf who can ask the hard questions about why state power is being used in a particular way. But he sees that as, as an attack on him. And, and then we get all that rhetoric about the press being enemies of people and fake news and so on,

Larry (11:20):

Except for the press that is on his side that talks about his policies as being the only ones that are valid.

Rebecca Hamilton (11:33):

Right. and, and you see this inclination towards you know, wanting to give special access to those that support his views. But it's all part of the same package of, I think a fundamental lack of respect for the role that a free plus press plays in a democratic society.

Larry (11:54):

And in addition, he's used the power of government to interfere with public access to the news. Defense secretary Pete sef has ousted press access to the Pentagon. The NTSB has been forced to use, and this really concerns me to use x to perform to inform the public about airline crashes. Social security seems to have to report actions on x threatening NPR and PBS with funding cuts accusing 60 minutes of partisan and unlawful acts of voter interference. How, how does it come about that government agencies can be forced to make critical announcements on a private social media entity?

Rebecca Hamilton (12:54):

So there's a few different things going on here to unpack, and I should say the national transportation board story was one where they were putting out information on x in a moment where there was sort of overwhelmed. There were those multiple plane crashes at once. And that doesn't seem to be sort of going to be standard practice across the board for them. So we, I'm, I'm less worried about that particular case. I think that was just a moment in time. And they're continuing to work hard to get information out through all channels, but we have subsequently seen in, in other areas this constricting of the channels through which the public can get information. And, and as you said that's been a real problem in relation to social security. You know, this shutting off of, of telephone access which is a huge problem for people that don't have internet access.

Rebecca Hamilton (13:49):

So there's, there's this general kind of restriction of, of channels of access. And I think connected to that is also we're seeing reduction in federal workforce including those that are responsible for public record keeping, for responding to freedom of information at requests. So you can, you can look at any one of these pieces in isolation, and it maybe doesn't seem like such a big deal, or it was momentary and seems like it wouldn't be part of a trend. But when you put all those pieces together, I do think we're seeing an overall narrowing of the, the places from which or the entry points for the public regarding information about what our government is doing. And, you know, the attacks on the, on the public broadcasting, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are, are also a part of that. The, the work that, that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does ensures that a huge number of people in the American public get, get access to quality free media

Larry (15:02):

And the shuttering of voice of America, which I guess has been reversed that gives an impression of what's going on in America to the rest of the world.

Rebecca Hamilton (15:17):

Well, it's not a, I mean, so yeah, it's, it's not just about voice of America and, and that has been effectively disbanded. But, but it's also other outlets or sources for global journalism like radio Free Asia. So, you know, I think it, it comes down to again, this, this deep dislike and distrust of free and fair reporting. So we're not only seeing that being squeezed out in the domestic setting, but also the role that the US used to play in supporting free and fair journalism globally. And in particular in countries that don't have their own tradition of a free press. These have been lifelines in terms of, of sources of information. But again, these are, these are being shutted.

Larry (16:22):

How do, how do nonprofits and, and closing down of nonprofits like universities and other nonprofits that cl criticize the government how does that affect what's going on?

Rebecca Hamilton (16:42):

So the government isn't closing them down, but it's certainly making a lot of organizations that are responsible for a whole lot of civic life in the United States very difficult to operate. And these executive orders that have attacked the ability of, of different educational institutions, for example to survive the threats to federal funding that we've seen at Columbia University, at Harvard University on the basis of whether or not they're willing to follow these unlawful truly unlawful demands that the Trump administration is, is making of them. And I think, you know, the Columbia versus Harvard responses are really interesting as, as a sort of mini case study Columbia capitulated very early to the demands that the Trump administration was making Harvard initially began to look like it was heading in the same direction but then changed course and has come out very strongly against the demands that the Trump administration was making that would've completely undercut the mission of the university.

Rebecca Hamilton (18:10):

And so we are gonna see that play out these different approaches. It seems very clear to me, and I think to anyone that has sort of worked or lived in an autocratic repressive regime that trying to comply or appease or capitulate to the demands of such an administration doesn't protect you in the long term because they can always change the rules of the game, and maybe you agree to demand X on day one. But on day 10, they, they say, well, that's no longer enough and, and we want you to do something else. So I think, you know, it's gonna come out better for, for Harvard than Columbia on the score. Although it is looking like Columbia is starting to rethink the initial strategy it took. So, so we'll see.

Larry (19:08):

How is Harvard going to influence the response of all the other universities?

Rebecca Hamilton (19:14):

Hmm. So Harvard's important in this, in the sense that, you know, huge, huge endowment beyond what, what most colleges and universities could ever dream of. And so there's been a sense of if, if Harvard can't stand up to this administration, then who can? But when Harvard does, I think it, it, you know, there's this, this saying that I, that I think is true and important in this moment, that courage is contagious. And when leaders in a field stand up and, and say, it is possible to resist this, there is another pathway you don't have to capitulate. Then it opens up the range of, of options for everybody else. And I think in all of this, and, and this sort of goes back a little bit to what I was saying about just habits that that many parts of, of American society have gotten into.

Rebecca Hamilton (20:13):

We haven't been, or again, I should say significant parts of US society haven't been great at thinking and acting collectively. Now, obviously, you, you, there are many counterpoints to that and, and you can think of labor unions and you can think of civil rights activists. So there are, there are places where in our society that we can look to for how to do this well how to, how to resist the encroachment on, on our rights. But all of it requires the ability to think and act collectively. Because part of, of what authoritarian regimes do is they divide and conquer. And, and that's how they sustain themselves in power. But the power of collective action is a very strong counterweight to that.

Larry (21:07):

What, what scares an autocratic regime. And as seen in Trump's presidency as well, with certain aspects of public and university education there seems to be a fear of giving people the right, not only to a free press, but the right to an an education that is not government controlled.

Rebecca Hamilton (21:47):

So I think for any authoritarian regime, it is about controlling information and knowledge so that you constrain people's understanding of their reality. And institutions of higher education have always been places of, of dissent and contrary views and resistance. And, and often that is really annoying to whoever is in power. I, I don't think that is, is unique to authoritarian regimes. But what is true about authoritarian regimes is that control of, of information and knowledge is really central and, and so any sites or institutions that they can't control are, are threatening.

Larry (22:38):

And this is even starting in grammar school, high school education, so with control of the books that kids can read.

Rebecca Hamilton (22:49):

Yes. And again, this predates remember this Trump administration and, and this has been one of those sort of fisher points in, in US society for a while now. This, this question of who gets to control what it is that our children read. And there are, you know, good faith debates on, on either side of that, but I think the issue comes when you, you're using state power to, to make these determinations.

Larry (23:22):

This was especially prevalent in Florida where the librarians would be given orders as to which books could be displayed or available.

Rebecca Hamilton (23:38):

Yeah. I, I mean, yes. I dunno that yeah. And so, you know, librarians are, are another if you're looking to control sites of information librarians are another sort of population that, that can be threatening to that. Because they're very sort of key to their profession is, is sharing and, and making available access to, to a range of knowledge.

Larry (24:13):

Freedom of speech in the legal profession is somewhat limited anyhow, by confidentiality. But what's the story with the attempts to subjugate law firms? Is this a, a quest for power or is it part of an attempt to continue to control possible antagonistic speech in the same way as controlling the press?

Rebecca Hamilton (24:47):

So I, I don't see the attacks on law firms as a freedom of speech issue. I do think it is about sort of pushing back against sites of resistance to whatever the administration's particular goals are, right? Because if you are going to, if, if any member of the public is going to use the courts to push back against unlawful actions against them or the institutions that they belong to, they need lawyers to represent them. And it seems to be that the attacks on law firms are based around the idea that law firms should somehow only work for, or primarily work for people or, or companies or organizations that align with this administration's agenda. And that the minute that a law firm is representing an interest that is opposed to the Trump administration's agenda, then that is somehow unacceptable and, and they need to be targeted. So that seems to be what's going on there

Larry (26:17):

With all of the press issues. What's the future of, of journalism in both print and digital media?

Rebecca Hamilton (26:28):

You know, I have a lot of faith in journalists <laugh> there you know, typically a, a pretty courageous bunch. And you, you know, you don't go into journalism to, to make a lot of money. You do it because you really care about reporting and, and figuring out what what is happening with different sources of power quite often. So, you know, I think it's, it's too soon to make any predictions. Certainly journalism is under attack. There are gonna be journalists who are better and worse positioned to be able to respond to that. You know, one of the things that that is true is, is that journalists working for news organizations that have big corporate owners also have legal departments that can respond to attacks on journalists. And that's not gonna be the case for journalists that are part of smaller or nonprofit outfits. At the same time, some of those independent journalists can get information out more quickly and, and effectively. So it's a real, you know, I think that that entire media ecosystem is in flux right now. But I wouldn't, I wouldn't give up on, on journalists too quickly.

Larry (28:10):

How should young journalists react to this? Kids who are just going into the field?

Rebecca Hamilton (28:17):

I, I mean, I, I say we, we need you <laugh>, we need more of you. And it's a, it's a wonderful profession to engage in. And there are lots of older journalists that are very keen to mentor the next generation about what it means to uphold the obligations of free and fair reporting. And, you know, like every new generation, they'll, they'll bring creativity and, and different you know, experiments and mechanisms for telling news stories in a way that really captures the, the imagination of people and, and what journalism looks like tomorrow is not gonna be the same as it looks like, you know, 20 years ago. And, and that's all for the good. But I think the, what is incumbent on, on all of us is to make sure that space is preserved for that to happen. And that means thinking about choices we are making, for example, with funding journalism, you know, not, not everybody is in a position to pay for their news, but when you think of all the things that, that we pay for in this society, I mean, Americans pay for everything, right?

Rebecca Hamilton (29:36):

Just there's very little that is, that is freely provided. And yet for the most part, we've got into the habit of, of not paying for journalism. That probably needs to change if we want to move away from the system of having just a few publications with big corporate owners. We've got into that position because we haven't been been paying for, for journalism.

Larry (30:07):

Are we facing a constitutional crisis?

Rebecca Hamilton (30:10):

We're in it, we're, we're not facing it. We are in it right now. And you know, so far we're seeing the courts doing overall a really good job of their role pushing back against constitutional violations. And I think we are in this moment now where the question is to what extent will this administration respond appropriately to the courts? But I think there should be no question that, that the crisis is here right now.

Larry (30:53):

A democracy depends on access to factual information from a free press to a difference of opinions expressed as opinions and a free flow of ideas. Any effort to undermine this freedom by the government is antithetical to our institution. Ultimately, we in the public must assume some degree of control. How do we do it? What are the next steps?

Rebecca Hamilton (31:26):

So the first message that I wanna convey in this moment is that we're not powerless. I think there is a an a sort of a sense right now of all this is unfolding sort of in Washington, like at, at a remove from, from real people's lives. But everything that that is happening is deeply connected to our lives ultimately. And so while there's an instinct to say, well, I'll just stay in my own little bubble, you know, right here in my neighborhood, everything seems okay for now. And so I'll just focus my energy on, on living my private life in the here and now. That way of thinking is, is ultimately what gives give leads to seeding our rights. And, and I think instead we need to understand that all of these things that we are hearing reported in the news whether now or in two years time, will have a, a very direct impact on our ability to live our lives freely.

Rebecca Hamilton (32:44):

And what is also pretty clear to me is that we could be, that if the trajectory continues the way that the initial, what are we at now, three months, four months of this administration has been going then we could be more free now than we're going to be in another six months time. And so it, it's incumbent upon us, I think, to sort of seize this moment to be raising our voices. And that's gonna look different for everybody. Everyone is situated differently in terms of what they have the ability to do, what level of risk they're able to take on. It matters when people are willing to turn out and protest. It matters when you call your representative and your member of your member of Congress and say that you're engaged and that you care. I think one of the terrifying things, frankly, in, in recent months has been that we've got an administration that is very committed to the strength of executive power, the power of the presidency.

Rebecca Hamilton (33:52):

We have a system of government that depends on the separation of powers and there being a check on that presidency. Courts seem to be trying to do their role, but Congress feels like it's been very, very absent. Now, obviously, there are individuals that, that have been, you know, rising to the occasion in, in Congress and you know, Cory Booker, for example, has been extraordinary on that front. But overall, I think we're gonna look back on the first sort of six months of this administration and, and wonder why overall Congress hadn't moved onto a footing that really understood the moment of emergency that we're in. But remember, Congress too doesn't work in a vacuum, and that's why I say it's on all of us. Congress needs to hear from, from its constituents. And just to, for, for all of those representatives to be reminded that we are paying attention.

Rebecca Hamilton (34:53):

And, and some of the best examples we've seen of that have been in the town halls that have been happening around the country where individual voters have been saying, this is not okay, what you are doing in our name and pushing back. So, so those are the sites of, of resistance that I think are gonna be sources of hope going forward. And again, there are so many groups and populations in this country that have always been having to work collectively in order to get their rights up help. And it is those communities, the most marginalized of communities in our society that I think we need to look to for their wisdom and, and guidance in this moment about how to do this.

Larry (35:46):

How do we break through to that other 49% and get them to listen to the arguments on the other side aside.

Rebecca Hamilton (35:59):

So there's no one answer to that, right? But I, but I think, again all of us are a part of a family or a community or a network where we encounter people that are, feel, feel very differently than, for example, the way I do about this administration. And I think recognizing that the people who see Trump as a necessary corrective for this country are themselves. They're not a monolith. And they're, they're individuals. They're people we know, they're people that are on our, you know, sports teams or are, you know, in our kids' schools or and, and having one-on-one conversations with them, rather than speaking about them as this sort of monolith I think is, is empowering. Because when you, when you say, oh, there's a 49% out there, how do we get to them? No one individual feels like they can take that on. But when you have the conversation with your, you know, grandchild or nephew or, or a cousin that doesn't think that there's any problem with the direction that this country is going right now you are gonna be much more compelling to them because, you know, you have a relationship with them. And it's a lot of those one-on-one private conversations that I think need to be happening. We need to get better at talking to each other.

Larry (37:49):

I'm just thinking about the resistance that comes in when you try to have a quiet, composed discussion with someone whose views are totally different than yours. And it becomes more of an argument than a, than a discussion.

Rebecca Hamilton (38:12):

So I'm not suggesting it's easy, and, and if it was easy, we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in now. I think, you know, people that do work on this, and there's a whole sort of body of research on, on how to have these conversations. It's about not coming into the conversation with the goal of convincing the other side that they're wrong, <laugh>, and that you're right. And you know, any of us, when, when we are faced with someone who is, is committed to showing us how wrong we are, reacts defensively but, but approaching those conversations with empathy and, and trying to listen. And it's not a one-off process, you know, it, it's, it is a long-term project, but again, we seem to have gotten ourselves into this state as a society and we're seeing the consequences of it. And so, yes, it's gonna be a hard and long road back to the point where we have a, a shared understanding at least of, of reality. And, and this is why the, the press piece is so important because what a well-functioning free press can do is convey this shared sense of accurately shared sense of, of reality among the society so that we're all working off the same set of facts when we're making decisions about who should be our representatives,

Larry (39:58):

Because we're no longer seem to be a centrist community with people to the left of center and to the right of center on both sides. We seem to be in the extremes.

Rebecca Hamilton (40:13):

I dunno, I mean, I I think there's probably a lot of, I don't have the polling on this, right? I think there's, there's probably a lot of people who would, would like to inhabit a center and maybe their, just their voices are not, what is getting amplified on, on social media?

Larry (40:29):

Any closing thoughts?

Rebecca Hamilton (40:31):

I guess the, the key thing that I, that I'm trying to convey in, in all the conversations that, that I'm having with a lot of different people at the moment, is that we, each of us have the power to influence the trajectory that this country is taking. And the minute that we forget that and imagine that it's somebody else who can take this on and that if we just sort of focus on ourselves and our own lives, that somehow magically this will be fixed that is only heading us in, in a negative direction. And so what exactly that looks like is going to be different for every individual. We're all placed in different circumstances. We all have different skills and, and access to different communities. But I think that the question for each of us to ask ourselves is given the particular skills or connections or background that we have, what is it that I myself can contribute in this moment? If I wanna ensure that the country that I am part of is one that I want my children and, and grandchildren to inherit. And, and to be very wary of that I think sort of pernicious reflex that can be so common of thinking that, you know, the worst of things couldn't happen here. That, that it, it's something that happens elsewhere. It can happen here and we need to, to fight for, for the rights that we believe in.

Larry (42:32):

Do we basically all want the same thing, the right to raise families to live in peace to explore our potentials?

Rebecca Hamilton (42:45):

Yes. So I think it is, it is true. It has always been true, and we forget it too often. It, it sounds trite, but that idea that what unites us is greater than what separates us and, you know, talk to anyone who is raising a child who has grandchildren, the things that they want for them are, are fundamentally more similar than, than they are disparate. And so that's why I think there is more commonality there than perhaps we see through looking at social media. The algorithms on social media are constructed in order to amplify a difference. So when we rely on social media for reporting, we see more of the differences than we see of the similarities. But if you actually get out into your neighborhood and, and talk to the people next door and talk to the people at the shops and the school and the park you recognize how much commonality there, there is

Larry (44:00):

On either side of the political, political distinctions between us. Do any of us really wanna live under an autocratic dictatorial regime?

Rebecca Hamilton (44:16):

No one, no one ever says that's their goal in life. So there's, there's a unification of purpose. Once we all have a, a shared understanding of, of that being the risk. And I think that's the challenge right now. And this is why the free press conversation is so important. Because if you don't understand that the Constitution is under attack then you don't see that that's the risk that we're facing.

Larry (44:46):

And that may be the common point where we all can disagree. Where, where we all can agree. <Laugh>

Rebecca Hamilton (44:55):

Indeed.

Larry (44:58):

Beck, thank you so much. This has been fascinating.

Rebecca Hamilton (45:02):

It's such a pleasure to talk to you.

Larry (45:04):

It's been, it's been great. Thanks for coming on specifically for seniors.

Rebecca Hamilton (45:10):

Thank you for hosting.

Announcer (45:15):

If you found this podcast interesting, fun or helpful, tell your friends and family and click on the follow or subscribe button. We'll let you know when new episodes are available. You've been listening to specifically for seniors. We'll talk more next time. Stay connected.