essay on press freedom

Essay on Freedom of the Press for Students and Children

500 words essay on freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is the most important wheel of democracy. Without a free press, a democracy cannot exist. In fact, the press is a great medium that conveys the truth to people. However, it cannot function fully if the press is not free.

People must have heard the saying about the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thus, it is the media’s responsibility to remain vigil for people’s safety. Moreover, the freedom of people is monitored by the media. The press watches those in power to ensure they do not misuse it. In order to do this, freedom of the press is required.

Importance of Freedom of the Press

The press has been given the responsibility of checking and balancing the administration and the government. Whenever there is a social evil lurking or corruption and oppression happens, the press is the first one to raise a voice.

Moreover, we trust the press to collect verify and disseminate the facts and figures which influence people’s decisions. If the press won’t have the liberty to do all this, the people will be in the dark.

Therefore, we see how if even any one of these liberties is take away from the press, the voiceless will lose their voice. Worse yet, if the press will be denied to do their job, the ones in power will run the country as per their will. This will result in uninformed citizens who will thus become powerless.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Moreover, we see how censorship of the press is nothing less than a dictatorship. When the government imposes censorship on the press, it obviously means they are trying to hide something. A person only hides lies and not the truth. Thus, this way the citizens will be manipulated into thinking there is nothing wrong with the government. Subsequently, when there remains no agency to report the truth, the government will gain absolute power.

In short, freedom of the press is important for the smooth functioning of democracy. It is important for people to be socially aware of happenings in the world. One must have the power to criticize the government; it will keep the administration on their toes to do better for the country.

Responsibility a Free Press

As we can conclude from the earlier statements, the press has a huge responsibility on their shoulders. They need to be vigilant and honest. Media has a powerful role to play in any form of government, whether democratic or totalitarian. The information they distribute helps in shaping the views of the public.

When you have such a power to influence the views of a whole public, then you must be even more responsible. In fact, the media is sometimes more powerful than the government. They have people’s trust and support. However, such a power given to any individual or agency is quite dangerous.

In other words, any media without restraints can be hazardous. As they have the power to showcase anything, they may report anything and twist the facts as per their agendas. They have the power to cause outrage amongst the people. A free press can easily manipulate the public’s opinion. This is why we need responsible journalism to refrain the media from reporting false facts which may harm the harmony and peace of a country.

FAQs on Freedom of the Press

Q.1 Why is freedom of the press important?

A.1 Freedom of the press is important for keeping people informed. A free press monitors the administration and forces them to work for the betterment of the country.

Q.2 What is the responsibility of a free press?

A.2 A free press has a huge responsibility of reporting the truth and shaping people’s opinions. Responsible journalism must be practiced to stop people from spreading hate and maintaining the harmony of a country.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of the Press

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 21, 2018 | Original: December 7, 2017

Freedom of the press—the right to report news or circulate opinion without censorship from the government—was considered “one of the great bulwarks of liberty,” by the Founding Fathers of the United States. Americans enjoy freedom of the press as one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. New technologies, however, have created new challenges to media freedom.

The First Amendment , which protects freedom of the press, was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights .

The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to assemble and petition the government.

Origins Of Free Press

Before the thirteen colonies declared independence from Great Britain, the British government attempted to censor the American media by prohibiting newspapers from publishing unfavorable information and opinions.

One of the first court cases involving freedom of the press in America took place in 1734. British governor William Cosby brought a libel case against the publisher of The New York Weekly Journal , John Peter Zenger, for publishing commentary critical of Cosby’s government. Zenger was acquitted.

Cato’s Letters

American free press ideals can be traced back to Cato’s Letters, a collection of essays criticizing the British political system that were published widely across pre-Revolutionary America.

The essays were written by Brits John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. They were published under the pseudonym of Cato between 1720 and 1723. (Cato was a statesman and outspoken critic of corruption in the late Roman Republic.) The essays called out corruption and tyranny in the British government.

A generation later, Cato’s Letters frequently were quoted in newspapers in the American colonies as a source of revolutionary political ideas.

Virginia was the first state to formally protect the press. The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights stated, “The freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments.”

More than a decade later, Virginia Representative (and later president of the United States) James Madison would borrow from that declaration when drafting the First Amendment.

Media Freedom And National Security

In 1971, United States military analyst Daniel Ellsberg gave copies of classified documents to The New York Times . The documents, which would become known as the Pentagon Papers , detailed a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.

The Pentagon Papers exposed government knowledge that the war would cost more lives than the public had been told and revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman , Dwight D. Eisenhower , John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all had misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

The government obtained a court order preventing The New York Times from publishing more excerpts from the papers, arguing that the published materials were a national security threat. A few weeks later, the U.S. government sought to block publication of the papers in the Washington Post as well, but the courts refused this time.

In the New York Times Co. v. United States , the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers, making it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of further government censorship.

Former CIA employee Edward Snowden leaked classified documents from the National Security Administration to newspapers in the U.K., United States and Germany in 2013. His leaks revealed several government surveillance programs and set off a global debate about government spying.

Some denounced Snowden as a traitor while others supported his actions, calling him a whistleblower and champion of media freedom.

Press Freedom Around The World

In 2017, a U.S.-based nonprofit, Freedom House, found that just 13 percent of the world’s population enjoys a free press—a media environment where political news coverage is robust and uncensored, and the safety of journalists is guaranteed.

The world’s 10 worst-rated countries and territories include: Azerbaijan, Crimea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea , Syria , Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The United States ranked 37 of 199 countries and territories for press freedom in 2017. Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden were the top ranking countries.

The Origins of Freedom of Speech and Press; Maryland Law Review . Freedom of the Press 2017; Freedom House .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Freedom of the Press Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

In any society, the media is relied upon to provide information on the events that happen both locally and internationally. The media is trusted to provide unbiased information, but this is not always the case. In the essay, we will try and find out if the media is an enemy of law enforcement.

The first amendment to the US constitution states that:

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 (Norton, 1996).

The press clause in this amendment has seen the media exercise too much freedom in their dissemination of information. The media is characterized by the reporting of news that interest the public so as to boost their ratings.

They therefore, use any means that they think are entertaining and appealing to their audience. In the area of crime, the media puts crime news in contexts that can be understood by the masses. The media ensures that there is policy accountability in their course of duty. The media ensures this by exposing inefficiency and corruption cases (Norton, 1996).

However, the media has not been all that partial in the dissemination of information and this has, on many occasions, been a problem to law enforcers. Because the media knows that their rights are protected by the constitution, they have gone to the extent of dwelling more on major misconduct from law enforcers.

The media ignores or does not cover everyday activities of the police because such events are not pleasing to the audience and will therefore, not raise their ratings. Police work is often distorted by the media which tends to only concentrate on crime and ignores other police activities not related to crime. They therefore, only highlight the negative side of law enforcement (Freedom, 2008).

This problem is also experienced in court cases whereby the media is often accused of press releases of information that should not be released before court cases are discharged. This has, on some occasions affected court decisions because jurors will have already formed prejudices about the case.

Too much publicity also risks having an impartial jury, the constitutions protects the media, meaning that courts have to employ other measures such as changing the venue. When writing the constitution, the writers knew that it was necessary to protect citizens from the government. They knew that it was important to let people air out their sentiments, but one should take caution about what he gives to the public (Freedom, 2008).

All has not been that bad with the media. For instance, the media helped in the capture of the Oklahoma City bomber when they aired it on the radio and ran sketches of the suspects on television. The Washington post also helped in the capture of the Unabomber when it published his manifesto.

On reading the manifesto, the brother quickly recognized it and alerted the police who apprehended him. However, in the “Alfred P. Murrah Federal office building” bombing case, the two accused men filed a request to dismiss the prosecution because they said that the trial had been prejudiced by the publicity made by the media. Their plea was accepted, but court proceedings were transferred to another court (Summary, n.d).

These cases show that media plays a very important role in the world and whether it is negative or positive, the forefathers were not mistaken, and the media should be free to provide checks and balances where necessary.

Freedom. (2008). Freedom of the Press. America Government. Web.

Norton, J. (1996). United States Constitution Amendments Article I of the Bill of Rights. Bare Foot Sword. Web.

Summary. (n.d). Summary and Conclusion. Web.

• "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World" by Linda Hirshman
• Communist Manifesto, Time and Social Issues
• Mass Media & Law Enforcers in Community Policing
• The Impact of Communication Media on Economic Development
• Functions and Power of Mass Media: Views of Two German Authors
• On the Cultural Crossroads: New Media vs. Old Media
• Globalization Effects on the System of Governance in the World
• "The West Memphis 3" Documentary
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 20). Freedom of the Press. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/

"Freedom of the Press." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Freedom of the Press'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Freedom of the Press." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

1. IvyPanda . "Freedom of the Press." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Freedom of the Press." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-the-press/.

Freedom of the Press

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

ACLU Cheers House Passage of the PRESS ACT

ACLU, Free Press, and First Amendment Rights Orgs Urge Courts to Unseal Documents Related to FBI Raid on Journalist

ACLU, Civil Rights Organizations, and Broadcasters Demand Transparency into FBI Raid of Journalist’s Home

ACLU Cheers House Judiciary Committee for Supporting Bills Expanding Protections for Journalists and Reining in Warrantless Government Surveillance

Explore more, what we're focused on.

Media Protection Laws

What's at stake.

“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.”

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

The freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy in which the government is accountable to the people. A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing. It is also a vibrant marketplace of ideas, a vehicle for ordinary citizens to express themselves and gain exposure to a wide range of information and opinions.

The rise of the national security state and the proliferation of new surveillance technologies have created new challenges to media freedom. The government has launched an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers, targeting journalists in order to find their sources. Whistleblowers face prosecution under the World War One-era Espionage Act for leaks to the press in the public interest. And in the face of a growing surveillance apparatus, journalists must go to new lengths to protect sources and, by extension, the public’s right to know.

The ACLU has played a central role in defending the freedom of the press, from our role in the landmark Pentagon Papers case to our defense of whistleblower Edward Snowden and our advocacy for a new media shield law . When press freedom is harmed, it is much harder to hold our government accountable when it missteps or overreaches.

The Future of Press Freedom: Scholars Series

What Journalists “Know” About Our Free Press That Just Ain’t So

Journalists today share a nostalgia for a past that never was., the future of press freedom: democracy, law, and the news in changing times.

A project aimed at identifying and protecting core press functions

To think through the future of a free press in the United States, journalists should have a fact-based understanding of their own past, as should critics and scholars of journalism. Instead, we swim about in a nostalgia-based sea of what never was—never, that is, until the late 1960s. I am less panic-stricken about the future of a free press than many others, not because I believe the path forward looks easy and untroubled (hardly!) but rather because I recognize that the common understanding of American journalism’s past, from the 1780s to the late 1960s, often misreads the historical record and exaggerates the role of the press as a check on government.

In this essay, I argue that, wise as the founders were, and guided though they were by a strong distrust of unchecked power, the journalism they knew had little in common with the journalistic practices that would emerge early in the 19th century when newspapers were avowedly subdivisions of political parties. They had even less in common with the proudly independent and professionally identified journalists of the late 19th century and 20th century and after. The key changes during this time, strangely enough, were not primarily driven by new technologies.

I can’t provide all the evidence for these claims here, but enough, I hope, to underpin three main points: (1) the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution in 1787 and its Bill of Rights in 1791 did not consider the press to be a central check on governmental power; (2) they did not see “reporting” as the chief contribution of the press to public life; and (3) the idea that the press should hold government accountable through assertive, independent, investigative and analytical reporting is not part of a long historic heritage but largely a product of changes in journalism—and in government—from the Vietnam War to the 1990s and beyond. Let me get into some details on these three points.

First, despite what journalists claim, the First Amendment was not “first for a reason.” When Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of The New York Times declared in 2019, echoing many others, “The First Amendment is first for a reason,” 1 1. Jill Abramson, Merchants of Truth (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2019), 505. For a clear account of how the third amendment became first, see Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 3–45. The book’s second chapter is entitled “Our First Amendment”—that is, the original third amendment that Congress proposed to the states. she was quite literally wrong. In 1791, after much debate in Congress, President George Washington sent on to the 13 states 12 amendments to the Constitution for their ratification. They did not ratify the first two amendments on the list. So, numbers three through 12 became numbers one through 10 as we know them. The First Amendment is first thanks to a historical accident. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay authored 85 short essays in 1787 and 1788, collectively known as The Federalist Papers, and published them in New York newspapers, seeking to persuade New York to ratify the Constitution. None of these essays paid any attention to newspapers themselves as a key constituent of a democratic governing process.

Second, holding power to account was enormously important to the founders, but holding power to account through reporting was simply not on their minds. There were no newsrooms. Newspapers were something of a sideline in a printer’s shop. The printers often combined their printing with serving as a post office. They sold stationery. They did “job printing” and other work to make money, including publishing pamphlets and almanacs. Benjamin Franklin’s printing business had contracts to print the paper money of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. While the newspapers of the 1760s and 1770s became more politically engaged, they were still more preoccupied with reprinting than reporting news, running items lifted from European newspapers brought by ship across the Atlantic. Before the late 1960s, metro daily papers, the heart of U.S. journalism (with all due respect to radio and television) did very little we would recognize today as assertive, penetrating, analytical, or investigative work. This is not to deny that some monthly magazines pursued what President Theodore Roosevelt derisively labeled “muckraking” at the beginning of the 20th century, but investigative work was nonetheless rare, and it was not institutionalized until the late 1960s and 1970s. The vogue for muckraking in the magazines died out within a decade. 2 2. Christopher B. Daly, Covering America: A Narrative History of a Nation’s Journalism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012), 145-50. Crusading journalism was relatively rare in general circulation newspapers, although it was vital in the Black press, notably in the anti-lynching reporting of Ida B. Wells.

Third, for most of the 19th century, newspapers were practically subsidiaries of the political parties that became powerful institutions a generation or two after the founders. And it would not be until the last decades of the 19th century that journalists developed a more independent-minded sense of their task, a distinctive way of writing with a “summary lead” (placing the key information up front), reliance on interviewing (a practice essentially unknown before the Civil War and regarded by European visitors to the U.S. as rude and presumptuous—and therefore very American), and the beginnings of a self-consciousness of themselves as a coherent occupational group, complete with well-populated gatherings in favorite bars and an insiders’ newsletter (The Journalist) founded 1884 and surviving until 1907 when it merged into Editor and Publisher. 3 3. Several historians have examined the history of interviewing, and I pulled this and other materials together for “Question Authority: A History of the News Interview,” originally in Media, Culture and Society 16 (October 1994) reprinted in Michael Schudson, The Power of News (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 72–93.

What happened in the late 1960s and 1970s was a set of novel developments—and not in journalism alone but also in government. We can probably date this to the passage in 1966 of what came to be known as the Freedom of Information Act—passed, by the way, with significant cooperation and participation from journalists. On its heels in 1967, Newsday became the first daily newspaper in the country to establish a team of reporters to pursue exclusively investigative reporting. Soon thereafter, the Associated Press created a “special assignment team” to report on what AP called “the submerged dimension” in government action. And in 1969, the Fund for Investigative Journalism was born, with the purpose of “increasing public knowledge about the concealed, obscure or complex aspects of matters significantly affecting the public.” 4 4. See Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers (New York: Basic Books, 1978), 190. Designated investigative teams were established in 1970 at the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune.

There was in the 1970s—even preceding The Washington Post’s pursuit of the Watergate story after the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters—a growing cultural approval for transparency practices in government, most of which have influence to this day. The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act opened up committee hearings and committee votes to being reported, even to being televised (C-SPAN began in 1979), and it ended the prohibition of recording votes when the House moved to the “committee of the whole.” The Federal Elections Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1973 led to the 1975 establishment of the Federal Elections Commission—and despite the courts rejecting some of the reforms limiting campaign contributions, one of the surviving provisions requires that campaign contributions must still be disclosed. This set of reforms was, as historian Julian Zelizer has written, “a revolution in the disclosure of political information.” 5 5. Julian E. Zelizer. “Seeds of Cynicism: The Struggle over Campaign Finance, 1956-1974,” Journal of Policy History 14, no. 1 (2002): 73–111 at 105.

There is no doubt that The Washington Post’s pursuit of the Watergate story after the break-in and attempted burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex accelerated a broad commitment to transparency. The Freedom of Information Act was amended and strengthened in 1974. A group of investigative reporters came together to establish Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE). Some of this “open government” legislation helped empower journalists by making government information available. Some of it helped public interest groups, notably through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was signed into law in 1970. NEPA required federal agencies proposing actions that might adversely affect the environment to make public a “detailed statement” on the expected environmental impact of their intended action. These “environmental impact statements” empowered public interest groups concerned about the environment to sue the government to prevent a federal agency from going ahead with its plans without revision.

And public accountability through government action did not stop there. In 1978, the Inspectors General Act established an Office of Inspector General in every Cabinet department and most other major federal agencies. About half of these Inspector General (IG) officers are presidentially appointed, not departmentally appointed, and their reports are public documents. The IGs have become a powerful set of watchdogs internal to the government itself. There are more than 70 IGs overseeing some 14,000 staff members. Their reports become the bases for news stories with some frequency, as they often have prosecution recommendations for persons in the agencies to which they are assigned.

What can account for all this opening up of government information? I don’t see any easy answer to this question, but it is well worth noting that the legal historian Lawrence Friedman published a study in 1999 called The Horizontal Society. Various long-standing conventional hierarchies were weakening—although when Friedman wrote, Mark Zuckerberg was still in high school and Facebook had not yet been conceived. Social media no doubt accelerated the move to more “horizontal” media of communication, but the evolution in that direction of society as a whole was already at work. In the 1990s, Friedman had already recognized around the world a weakening of traditional hierarchies in families, churches, towns, and nations. He also noted that horizontality was not necessarily a move to equality—it made “the masses of the people … unformed, malleable, protoplasmic. This is thus a society of the black arts of manipulation—a society of propaganda, focus groups, public opinion polls.” The 20th century was “a century of rabble-rousers, of demagogues, of fiery orators—an age of men (and an occasional woman) who tried to create, out of an inchoate mass, an identity army, ready to march against whoever or whatever was labeled the enemy of the day.” 6 6. Lawrence M. Friedman, The Horizontal Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 15. I do not think Friedman is a prophet, but he is a shrewd observer. He wrote that sentence about the last century, but obviously it fits 2024 in many corners of the globe, including the United States.

News organizations of the 1940s and 1950s, when trust in the media was much higher than today, were not dedicated to holding governmental power (or other centers of power) to account. I acknowledge that this is a subtle matter. But that the news media became more dedicated to serving the public good through vigorous, fact-based reporting in the years after 1968 or 1970 is clear, even if this is a matter of degree rather than a total makeover. In Meg Greenfield’s (posthumous) memoir, Washington , this longtime Washington reporter and op-ed page editor of The Washington Post recalled that Washington journalism in the 1940s and 1950s was “more obliging to its government sources, much more willing to keep its secrets, and much more involved in its actual policymaking than it ever should have been—and than the successor generation in Washington today would dream of being.” 7 7. Meg Greenfield, Washington (New York: Public Affairs, 2001), 191. There was more “old-boy” collusion that would later be unacceptable. It is worth observing that a move toward a more critical, assertive, and negative stance of news reporting toward political leaders took place at the same time in other countries, including Sweden, Britain, Japan, and countries in South America. 8 8. See Monika Djerf-Pierre, "Squaring the Circle: Public Service and Commercial  Commercial News on Swedish Television, 1956-1999,” Journalism Studies 1  (2000); 239-60; Eliis Krauss, "Changing Television News in Japan,"  Journal of Asian Studies 57 (1998): 663-92; Paddy Scannell, "Public Service Broadcasting and Modern Public Life,"  Media, Culture & Society  11 (1989): 135-66; and Silvio Waisbord, "The Narrative of Exposes in South American Journalism,"  Gazette  59 (1997): 189-203.

Looking back at the 1940s and 1950s, how far could this friendly insider-ism collusion go? Far, very far. As an example, in 1945 Walter Lippmann, a brilliant analyst of American politics and American journalism and a well-known syndicated columnist, worked with James “Scotty” Reston, a rising star at The New York Times, to talk with Michigan Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a likely aspirant for the Republican presidential nomination in 1948. These two journalists advised Vandenberg that if he wanted to be a serious candidate, he would need to distance himself from isolationism and take some leadership on international affairs. Vandenberg apparently listened attentively and asked the journalists if they could draft a speech for him along these lines. They did. Vandenberg delivered the speech in the Senate. Lippmann praised the speech in his column and Reston wrote in The Times that the speech was “wise” and “statesmanlike.” Neither noted that they had ghostwritten the speech. 9 9. Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1980): 418–19 and (New York: Random House, 1991): 156–61. John F. Stacks, a long-serving reporter for Time, finds the story a bit more complicated but still essentially correct. See his Scotty: James B. Reston and the Rise and  Fall of American Journalism   (Boston: Little, Brown, 2003): 99–100.

Such connivance is not dead, but it is more rare and would be more scandalous now than it was in the 1950s. There was a revolution in the U.S. press in the late 1960s and 1970s. We typically fail to recognize it because neither journalists nor historians settled on a name for it—it has been called interpretive journalism, analytical journalism, enterprise journalism, investigative reporting, contextual journalism, social science journalism, and explanatory reporting. 10 10. See Kathy Roberts Forde, “Discovering the Explanatory Report in American Newspapers,” Journalism Practice 1 (2007): 230; and see also Katherine Fink and Michael Schudson, “The Rise of Contextual Reporting, 1950s-2000s,” Journalism: Theory, Practice, Criticism 15, no. 1 (January 2014): 3–20. The Pulitzer Prize board added to its list of journalism awards one for “explanatory journalism” in 1985 (changing the name of the prize to “explanatory reporting” in 1998). Even the notion that journalism’s primary democratic obligation is to hold government accountable employs a language of relatively recent currency. Former executive editor of The Washington Post, Leonard Downie, Jr., and his Washington Post colleague Robert Kaiser wrote of a rising “culture of accountability” in 2002. 11 11. Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser, The News About the News: American Journalism in Peril (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002): 7. Downie told me that “I believe I was the first to use the term ‘accountability journalism’ widely and often.” 12 12. Leonard Downie, Jr., personal communication via email, November 21, 2017. I think he is right about this. Political scientist Melvin Dubnick finds that “accountability” as a general term for holding government accountable to the public came into general usage only in the 1990s. 13 13. Melvin Dubnick, “Accountability as a Cultural Keyword,” in Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, eds. Mark Bovens, Robert Goodin, and Thomas Schillemans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 23–38. The idea that journalists should investigate, that news organizations should have specially delegated “spotlight” teams, and that interpretive and explanatory and investigative work—not he-said-she said journalism and not opinion-spouting—should be integral to journalism’s mission is much more contemporary than journalists normally recognize.

Journalism has changed since Benjamin Franklin’s days at his printing press or James Madison’s days overseeing the writing of the Bill of Rights. The founders knew newspapers, but they did not dream of anything remotely like today’s professional, fact-based, sometimes investigative, often analytical journalism. The First Amendment that today can be invoked both rhetorically and legally to protect news organizations was not, as First Amendment scholars remind us, used in this way until after World War I. 14 14. Lee C. Bollinger, “First Amendment,” in Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, ed. Kermit L. Hall (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): 297–99. The glories of U.S. journalism, especially since 1968, do not lie in the hopes or achievements of the founders so much as they are rooted in the changed political culture—both in government and in professionalized journalism, of the decades since 1968. Some of our heroes did not meet in Constitution Hall in the 18th century; some of them are with us still, and in the realm of the digital and the nonprofits, some of them are still emerging.

1 Jill Abramson, Merchants of Truth (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2019), 505. For a clear account of how the third amendment became first, see Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 3–45. The book’s second chapter is entitled “Our First Amendment”—that is, the original third amendment that Congress proposed to the states.

2 Christopher B. Daly, Covering America: A Narrative History of a Nation’s Journalism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012), 145–50.

3 Several historians have examined the history of interviewing, and I pulled this and other materials together for “Question Authority: A History of the News Interview,” originally in  Media, Culture and Society 16 (October 1994) reprinted in Michael Schudson,  The Power of News (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 72–93.

4 See Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers (New York: Basic Books, 1978), 190.

5 Julian E. Zelizer. “Seeds of Cynicism: The Struggle over Campaign Finance, 1956-1974,” Journal of Policy History 14, no. 1 (2002): 73–111 at 105.

6 Lawrence M. Friedman, The Horizontal Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 15.

7 Meg Greenfield, Washington (New York: Public Affairs, 2001), 191.

8 See Monika Djerf-Pierre, “Squaring the Circle: Public Service and Commercial News on Swedish Television, 1956-1999,”  Journalism Studies 1 (2000): 239–60; Ellis Krauss, “Changing Television News in Japan,” Journal of Asian Studies 57 (1998): 663–92; Paddy Scannell, “Public Service Broadcasting and Modern Public Life,” Media,  Culture & Society 11 (1989): 135–66; and Silvio Waisbord, “The Narrative of Exposes in South American Journalism,”  Gazette 59 (1997): 189–203.

9 Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1980): 418–19 and (New York: Random House, 1991): 156–61. John F. Stacks, a long-serving reporter for Time, finds the story a bit more complicated but still essentially correct. See his  Scotty: James B. Reston and the Rise and Fall of American Journalism (Boston: Little, Brown, 2003): 99–100.

10 See Kathy Roberts Forde, “Discovering the Explanatory Report in American Newspapers,” Journalism Practice 1 (2007): 230; and see also Katherine Fink and Michael Schudson, “The Rise of Contextual Reporting, 1950s-2000s,” Journalism: Theory, Practice, Criticism 15, no. 1 (January 2014): 3–20.

11 Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser, The News About the News: American Journalism in Peril (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002): 7.

12 Leonard Downie, Jr., personal communication via email, November 21, 2017.

13 Melvin Dubnick, “Accountability as a Cultural Keyword,” in Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, eds. Mark Bovens, Robert Goodin, and Thomas Schillemans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 23–38.

14 Lee C. Bollinger, “First Amendment,” in Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, ed. Kermit L. Hall (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): 297–99.

Michael Schudson is a professor of journalism at Columbia Journalism School.

Filed Under

• Press Freedom
• Future of Press Freedom

The New York Times Vs. United States: a Crucial Legal Battle for Press Freedom

This essay about New York Times Co. v. United States, also known as the Pentagon Papers case, highlights its lasting impact on American journalism and press freedom. The 1971 Supreme Court decision affirmed the press’s role in holding the government accountable by protecting the right to publish classified information of profound public interest. The case set a precedent, emphasizing the high burden of proof required for governmental prior restraint, and underscored the essential function of investigative journalism in a democratic society.

How it works

In the storied history of American journalism, few cases have left as lasting an impact as New York Times Co. v. United States , more commonly known as the Pentagon Papers case. This landmark legal confrontation in 1971 not only tested the boundaries of press freedom but also underscored the pivotal role of the media in a democratic society.

The controversy ignited when Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst, leaked a classified Pentagon study to journalists at The New York Times. Dubbed the Pentagon Papers, this extensive report revealed decades of U.

S. government deception and strategic missteps in the Vietnam War. The Times, known for its investigative zeal, promptly began publishing excerpts, prompting swift retaliation from the Nixon administration.

Arguing that further publication threatened national security, the government obtained a restraining order against The New York Times, triggering a high-stakes legal battle that would reach the Supreme Court. At its core was a fundamental clash between governmental claims of secrecy and the press’s constitutional right to inform the public.

In a landmark 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with The New York Times. Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion affirmed the press’s vital role in holding government accountable, asserting that “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringements on First Amendment rights.” The Court held that the government had not met the stringent criteria required to justify suppressing the press, especially when it concerned matters of profound public interest.

New York Times Co. v. United States set a precedent that resonates to this day. It established a framework—often referred to as the Pentagon Papers Doctrine—that guides judicial scrutiny of government attempts to restrain press freedom. This doctrine emphasizes the high burden of proof the government must meet to justify prior restraint, ensuring that the public’s right to information outweighs claims of national security in most cases.

Beyond its legal ramifications, the case highlighted the indispensable role of investigative journalism in democracies. The New York Times and other media outlets played a crucial role in informing public discourse about critical government policies, fostering transparency, and shaping public opinion on contentious issues like the Vietnam War.

In conclusion, New York Times Co. v. United States stands as a pivotal moment in American legal history, reinforcing the First Amendment’s protections for press freedom against governmental overreach. Its legacy underscores the enduring significance of a free and independent press in holding power accountable and safeguarding democratic principles. As contemporary challenges continue to test these principles, the lessons of this historic case remain a beacon for navigating the complex intersection of national security, transparency, and the public’s right to know.

Cite this page

The New York Times vs. United States: A Crucial Legal Battle for Press Freedom. (2024, Jun 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-new-york-times-vs-united-states-a-crucial-legal-battle-for-press-freedom/

"The New York Times vs. United States: A Crucial Legal Battle for Press Freedom." PapersOwl.com , 28 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-new-york-times-vs-united-states-a-crucial-legal-battle-for-press-freedom/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The New York Times vs. United States: A Crucial Legal Battle for Press Freedom . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-new-york-times-vs-united-states-a-crucial-legal-battle-for-press-freedom/ [Accessed: 29 Jun. 2024]

"The New York Times vs. United States: A Crucial Legal Battle for Press Freedom." PapersOwl.com, Jun 28, 2024. Accessed June 29, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-new-york-times-vs-united-states-a-crucial-legal-battle-for-press-freedom/

"The New York Times vs. United States: A Crucial Legal Battle for Press Freedom," PapersOwl.com , 28-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-new-york-times-vs-united-states-a-crucial-legal-battle-for-press-freedom/. [Accessed: 29-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The New York Times vs. United States: A Crucial Legal Battle for Press Freedom . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-new-york-times-vs-united-states-a-crucial-legal-battle-for-press-freedom/ [Accessed: 29-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics   >   unit 3, freedom of the press: lesson overview.

• Freedom of the press

Cases to know

Key takeaways, review questions, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Handout A: Why Does a Free Press Matter? (Background Essay)

First Amendment freedoms like press, petition, and assembly are rights essential to self-government. The Founders saw press freedom as a way to both protect free republican government and to make sure the government promotes justice.

What Is The History of Press Freedom?

Press freedom is a traditional right, although its practical definition has changed over time. William Blackstone, an English judge and politician, wrote in Commentaries on English Law (1765-70) that freedom of the press was important to a free state and that it required that government could not change what someone could say before it was published or stop them from publishing it. Others, like the Enlightenment philosophers of the early 1700s, saw the press as a way to fight the abuse of power by telling people about government offenses.

Nearly all of the American colonies protected the freedom of the press. At the time, freedom of the press was understood to mean that government could not censor [delete or change] material it did not like in advance of publication—a practice known as “prior restraint.” Governments could, and did, punish people for what they wrote after the fact. The Founders highly valued a free press for its ability to limit government power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) called the freedom of the press a “great bulwark [protection or support] of liberty.” James Madison agreed and said during the debate over the Bill of Rights that because a free press helps to protect liberty, the freedom of the press must not be violated.

The Founders also valued newspapers because they keep citizens informed. This allows citizens to make good, knowledgeable decisions about government. Because the government’s power comes from the people, the government can’t make good choices unless its citizens are well-informed. Newspapers were a means of informing the public in a society dedicated to self-government. The First Amendment, protecting the freedom of the press, was ratified in 1791.

The meaning of the First Amendment would be debated when Congress, with a Federalist majority, passed the Sedition Act of 1798. The law stated that people could be fined or imprisoned for criticizing the president or members of Congress. President John Adams, also a Federalist, claimed the law was not politically-motivated and was needed to avoid war with France. However, all 25 people arrested for breaking the law were his political opponents. Founders James Madison and Thomas Jefferson each wrote criticisms of Congress for passing the law, arguing that it violated the First Amendment.

Although some states supported the law, public opposition to the Sedition Acts was so great that many Federalists, including President Adams, were turned out of office, and Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republicans, took office in 1801. The new, Republican-controlled Congress allowed the law to expire. The Supreme Court was never asked to rule on the Sedition Act’s constitutionality. If it had, a main defense of the Sedition Act would likely have been that it was not a prior restraint. Citizens were free to publish their thoughts. They were not, however, protected from criminal punishment after the fact. This traditional understanding of press freedom—no prior restraints—may explain the fact that some of the same officials who approved the First Amendment also approved the Sedition Act.

A Free Press and State Governments

The First Amendment protected the press from federal government censorship. State governments, however, routinely censored newspapers. For example, before and during the Civil War, some southern states with economies relying on slave labor censored anti-slavery newspapers. At the same time, pro-slavery newspapers were censored in some northern states. Regulation of the press by state governments continued until 1931 when the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom to the states.

The case of Near v. Minnesota (1931) involved a state policy that required newspapers to get government approval before publication. Publishers had to show the government that they had a good reason for what they wanted to print. If they could not, the paper would be censored. The Court held that this kind of prior restraint on publication was the type of censorship the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The Court also held that, except in very rare circumstances, neither federal nor state governments could stop the publication of materials in advance.

The tough requirements to justify prior restraints mean that general claims of national security are not enough for government to stop publication in advance. In the case of New York Times v. U.S. (1971), the federal government attempted to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing excerpts [small pieces or long quotes] from the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers were illegally leaked [given to the public] classified [secret] documents that revealed U.S. government misconduct during the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration claimed that making them public would be dangerous to national security.

The Supreme Court found the prior restraint unconstitutional. They said the word ‘security’ is too general to justify taking away the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press: “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. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.”

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that a key reason for the First Amendment was to make sure citizens could keep government accountable to the people. Since there was no specific threat to national security, the government failed to justify using prior restraint to limit citizens’ First Amendment rights.

What About Libel?

Like all individual rights, freedom of the press has limits defined by the equal rights of others. One example is libel – written or printed speech that is false and harms someone’s reputation. Like the definition of press freedom, the legal definition of libel has changed over time.

In the 1800s and before, truth was not always a defense for libel. In the case of People v. Croswell (1804), Harry Croswell was convicted of libel for printing a story critical of President Thomas Jefferson in his newspaper. Croswell appealed his conviction. Alexander Hamilton, the Founder who represented Croswell on appeal, argued that truth should be a defense for libel. Croswell’s conviction was upheld, but the case led New York to change its law to allow truth as a defense. Though the case was not decided by the Supreme Court, People v. Croswell was a very important case because Hamilton’s arguments led New York to reject the definition of libel from English tradition and in the Sedition Act, leading to greater press freedom for individuals.

In 1960, the Civil Rights Movement [the social and political movement to give equal rights and treatment to people of all races] was gaining strength. Civil rights leaders ran a full-page ad in the New York Times to raise funds to help civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Sixty well-known Americans signed it. The ad described what it called a “wave of terror” of police violence against peaceful protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. What it described was mostly accurate [correct or true], but some of the charges in the ad were not true. For example, the ad said that police “ringed” [surrounded] a college campus where protestors were, but this charge was exaggerated [made to seem larger or more important than it really is]. The ad also stated, falsely, that state authorities locked the dining hall shut in response to the protest “in an attempt to starve them into submission.”

L.B. Sullivan was one of three people in charge of police in Montgomery. He sued the New York Times for libel. The ad did not mention Sullivan’s name, but Sullivan claimed that the ad suggested that he was responsible for the actions of the police and that the ad damaged his reputation in the community. In the Alabama court, Sullivan won his case and the New York Times was ordered to pay $500,000 in damages.

The Times appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in Sullivan v. New York Times (1963). The newspaper argued that it did not mean to hurt L.B. Sullivan. The newspaper had no reason to believe that the advertisement included false statements, so it did not check their accuracy. The Times argued that if a newspaper had to check the accuracy of every criticism of every public official a free press would be severely limited.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to prove libel, a “public official” must know that the newspaper acted with “‘actual malice’– that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless [irresponsible] disregard” for the truth. The Court stated that America has a “national commitment” to the idea that debate about public issues should be free and open. Free and open debate about the conduct of public officials, the Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, honest factual errors that might hurt officials’ reputations.

The result of the Sullivan decision is that, generally speaking, it is very difficult for public officials to win in court if they accuse a publisher of libel. The Court ruled in 1987 that public officials cannot sue for emotional distress in libel cases unless the publication contained a false statement made with “actual malice.”

Press Freedom Today

New technology and the growing concern about national security have created new opportunities for press freedom as well as new threats to it. On the one hand, the internet lets citizens publish their ideas and share them with a wide audience in ways that were never possible before. Prior restraint is much harder for government to impose when news can be posted online. Video sites like YouTube enable citizens to report on government action immediately. On the other hand, there have been several cases in which citizens recording police action have had their cameras taken by police and have even faced prosecution. American companies like Google must also decide whether to disable certain search terms or otherwise help oppressive governments censor the information people in their countries can access online.

In a time when anyone with a keyboard, a camera, and an internet connection can be a journalist, it is incredibly important that citizens are aware of the importance of press freedom, and their own role in keeping government within its constitutional limits.

Critical Thinking Questions

• Historically, how has press freedom been understood?
• The Sedition Act of 1798 seems unconstitutional to modern readers. How might someone in 1798 have argued that it was constitutional?
• Summarize the Court’s ruling in New York Times v. U.S. Do you agree with the Court’s reasoning?
• What was the Court’s reasoning for its ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan ? Would you have come to the same conclusion if you had been deciding the case?
• What do you think is the greatest threat to press freedom today? What can citizens do to ensure our press freedom is protected?

Essay On Freedom Of Press

Introduction: A press is the symbol of a free people. An independent well-informed press is a powerful check on arbitrary governments and irresponsible administrators.

‘Freedom of the press’ or ‘Freedom of the media’ is the principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state; its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

“ Press freedom is the cornerstone of democratic societies. All States, all nations, are strengthened by information, debate and the exchange of opinions. At a time of growing discourse of mistrust and delegitimization of the press and journalism, it is essential that we guarantee freedom of opinion through the free exchange of ideas and information based on factual truths. ”

— Audrey Azoulay , Director-General of UNESCO , on the occasion of ‘World Press Freedom Day’ .

Meaning: Freedom of the press means to speak about all concerned. Even a general citizen can enjoy this freedom. He may express his opinions and constructive ideas through the newspaper. Freedom of the press does not mean freedom to the news media. It means freedom of all sorts of opinions and writings from all corners.

Freedom of the press is construed as an absence of interference by outside entities, such as a government or religious organization, rather than as a right for authors to have their works published by other people. This idea was famously summarized by the 20th-century American journalist, A. J. Liebling, who wrote, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. Freedom of the press gives the printer or publisher exclusive control over what the publisher chooses to publish, including the right to refuse to print anything for any reason.

If the freedom of the press is undervalued books written on religion, politics, sex, etc. may likely be prescribed. Personal art, doctrines, isms are not subject to any moral or immoral barrier. If this happens to them, they will remain at the bottom of people’s oblivion.

Reasons for the freedom of press: Newspapers and journals make a very good contribution to the nation and the land so that they may function well either effectively or efficiently. Hence they deserve freedom in their realm of work within specific ethics. As related and identified with newspapers, the press wields immense power in a democratic country.

Every year, 3 rd May is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom, to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession. World Press Freedom Day was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1993 following a Recommendation adopted at the twenty-sixth session of UNESCO’s General Conference in 1991. This in turn was a response to a call by African journalists who in 1991 produced the landmark Windhoek Declaration on media pluralism and independence.

Real Freedom: Real freedom of the press can exist only where free people can function freely in a free democracy. It is saved right which should zealously be promoted. The Government owes it to itself to guarantee it from all arbitrary interferences. Editors owe it to the public to maintain an honest attitude in favor of the people against the party or class interest. In an enriched democratic govt. a newspaper is widely free like flying birds in the sky to express and spread public opinion.

The concept of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is often covered by the same laws as ‘Freedom of the Press’, thereby giving equal treatment to spoken and published expression. Sweden was the first country in the world to adopt freedom of the press into its constitution with the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766.

The legislative body can ensure the freedom of the press by preventing any interference. Only the independent-minded editors should be allowed to publish newspapers freely considering the legal rights of the common people. No newspapers should be allowed to publish baseless news, false news, ill-propaganda, influencing news, scurrilous abuse, distorted news etc.

Conclusion: Freedom of the press should be a valued privilege. The govt. should zealously come forward to encourage the newspaper to publish news and views in a free and fair way against any party and class interests.

Information Source:

• ontaheen.com
• en.unesco.org

Strength Lies in Unity

Importance Of Punctuality In Our Life

The Air We Breathe

Student’s Role in Social Development

Bicchulite: Properties and Occurrences

Explain Low Risk Investment Strategy

Metal Fume Fever

Popularity of Wearable Tech

Consumer Perceptions of Retail Banking Service on Exim Bank

Child tweets nonsense from official us military account

Latest post.

Mixing Petroleum with Chlorine could Produce Dangerous Byproducts

Nutrient Resorption in Plants

Unifacial Cambium

Complementary Cells

Jet-propelled Sea Creatures could improve Ocean Robotics

Scientists Generate Temperatures exceeding 1,000 Degrees Celsius using Solar Power instead of Fossil Fuels

Why Is Freedom Of The Press Important in a Democracy?

Freedom of the press states that expression and communication through published media – like in print and video – is a right. Freedom of the press is codified in multiple documents that set international standards . A government should not interfere with this freedom or censor media that’s critical of state power. For years, freedom of the press has been an essential part of democracy. In a democracy, people have the right to choose their government either directly or by electing representatives. Why is freedom of the press so important for democracy to thrive? What are the threats to this freedom?

Truth, accountability, and informed voting: reasons why freedom of the press matters

A healthy democracy has guiding principles like citizen rule, fair and free elections, the protection of individual rights, and cooperation. To ensure these principles become a reality, a free press is important. There are three main reasons why:

A free press fights for the truth

Freedom of the press matters because a free press uncovers the truth. There are many issues – often very complicated ones – that journalists are trained to analyze and explain. Without newspapers, radio shows, blogs, etc, the average person would have little to no knowledge of what’s going on around them. Most people lack the time and resources to investigate issues and stories that affect them and their communities. That’s where journalists come in. Armed with skills like research and critical thinking, the best journalists know what questions to ask , what leads to pursue, and how to fact-check. Fact-checking is a vital element of a free press. If the press is not able to fact-check safely and effectively, the truth remains buried.

A free press holds power accountable

Many entities can benefit from the truth staying hidden, including governments. One of the free press’ main missions is serving as a watchdog on power. The press is the bridge between the people and powerful entities. If the press is not free but instead beholden to power, it simply serves as an extension of that power. Without freedom of the press, journalists who try to tell the truth when it threatens the state are not protected by the law. This makes censorship and suppression inevitable. Even if a state made it a goal to be more truthful and transparent, there’s always an agenda they would need to serve. In the case of corruption and human rights violations , a free press is essential to exposing abuses of power.

A free press informs voters and strengthens democracy

Informed voting is the third reason why freedom of the press is so important. Democracies only thrive when voters are as informed as possible. Being informed ensures people understand the issues at hand and what policies and politicians best represent them. The press is the body that informs by analyzing information, encouraging discussion, and fact-checking. The freer the press, the better informed voters can be. Without this freedom, voters would be at the mercy of politicians and special interest groups that want to win elections and promote specific legislation. It would be very difficult and time-consuming for voters to do all their work on their own. A strong media makes the process less complicated and offers valuable insight.

How freedom of the press is threatened

The press is threatened around the world. Some places are worse than others, but even in democracies, press freedom can face many challenges. Organizations like Reporters Without Borders track the number of journalists harassed, imprisoned, or killed. This info gives the world a sense of how serious the problem is. There are many threats to a free press, including:

Legal threats

Legal threats like libel and privacy lawsuits, source intimidation, and subpoenas for confidential information drain money and resources from news sources, delay or block stories, and make people afraid to talk to journalists.

Governmental threats

Government officials can make a journalist’s job much harder and even dangerous. Actions include threatening to take away licenses, using inflammatory language against the press, and tracking or even arresting journalists. This abuse of power sows distrust in journalists, makes them a target for violence, and dampens the media’s ability to get out important stories.

Harassment and physical violence

Being a journalist can be a very dangerous job. Harassment is very common, especially for female journalists. Stalking, threatening, doxing, and trolling all serve to intimidate journalists and discourage them from working. Harassment can escalate to physical violence and include attacks, bomb threats, stolen equipment, and murder.

Protecting freedom of the press

What helps ensure that the press stays free and flourishing? Legislation that protects journalists and freedom of the press is one of the most important steps. “Shield laws,” which are laws that provide journalists with an absolute or qualified privilege to refuse to reveal their sources, are found in many places. A shield law protects both the journalist and their source. In the United States, there is no federal shield law, so many activists are working toward this goal. On an individual level, citizens can help protect freedom of the press by staying informed about threats to press freedom and efforts to support free media. Supporting local newspapers is another way to stay informed and ensure that the issues most relevant to your daily life are being reported on. For the sake of democracy, freedom of the press is a right that every entity in society must care about and commit to protecting.

Learn more about freedom of the press in an online course .

You may also like

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Most Americans say a free press is highly important to society

A large majority of Americans see the freedom of the press as highly important to the well-being of society. But many express concerns about potential restrictions on press freedoms in the United States – and say that political and financial interests already have a lot of influence on news organizations. These findings come from a new Pew Research Center survey ahead of World Press Freedom Day on May 3.

To examine Americans’ perceptions of press freedom in the United States, Pew Research Center surveyed 3,600 U.S. adults from April 1 to 7, 2024.

Everyone who completed the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

Here are the  questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This is the latest analysis in Pew Research Center’s ongoing investigation of the state of news, information and journalism in the digital age, a research program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults (73%) say the freedom of the press – enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is extremely or very important to the well-being of society. An additional 18% say it is somewhat important, and 8% say it is a little or not at all important.

Some demographic groups are more likely to view press freedom as highly important to society. For instance, White and Asian Americans (78% each) are more likely than Hispanic (61%) and Black (60%) Americans to say it is extremely or very important. U.S. adults with more formal education and higher income levels also are significantly more likely than those with less formal education and lower incomes to say this.

There are no major differences by political party.

Views of press freedom and potential restrictions

Most U.S. adults (79%) believe the media are at least somewhat free to report the news in the country. However, only a third say they’re completely free to do so. About one-in-five Americans (21%) say the media are not very or not at all free to report the news in the U.S.

At the same time, large majorities of Americans believe that U.S. news organizations are at least somewhat influenced by corporations and financial interests (84%) or by the government and political interests (83%). This includes about half of Americans who say news organizations are influenced a great deal by financial interests (51%) or by political interests (49%).

Fewer than one-in-ten U.S. adults say news organizations are not influenced very much or at all by financial (6%) or political (8%) interests.

Recent high-profile incidents such as a police raid on a Kansas newsroom and a government seizure of a Florida journalist’s materials have raised questions about press freedom in the U.S.

Regardless of how free they think the press currently is, 41% of Americans are extremely or very concerned about potential restrictions on press freedoms in the country. An additional 29% are somewhat concerned.

Journalists themselves are especially worried about possible restrictions on press freedom. In a 2022 survey of U.S. journalists , a majority of those surveyed (57%) said they were extremely or very concerned about this.

Partisan differences in views of press freedom

Some aspects of the debate over press freedom have been divided by political party in recent years. For example, former President Donald Trump has been adversarial toward journalists , and Republicans have long alleged that social media sites censor some political viewpoints .

In the new Center survey, Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP are consistently more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to express concerns about press freedom.

For instance, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the media in the U.S. are completely free to report the news (38% vs. 29%), while Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say the media are not very or not at all free (29% vs. 12%). And 47% of Republicans say they are extremely or very concerned about potential restrictions on press freedoms, compared with 38% of Democrats.

Republicans are also about twice as likely as Democrats to believe political interests have a great deal of influence on U.S. news organizations. Two-thirds of Republicans say this about political interests, compared with 34% of Democrats. Six-in-ten Republicans and 45% of Democrats say financial interests have a great deal of influence on U.S. news organizations.

Protecting press freedom versus preventing misinformation

While Americans largely value the concept of press freedom, they are more evenly divided when it comes to the tension between protecting a free press and preventing the spread of misinformation.

About half of U.S. adults (51%) say that the publication of false information should always be prevented, even if it means press freedom could be limited. Meanwhile, 46% of Americans say press freedom should always be protected, even if it means false information could be published.

The groups that are more likely to say press freedom should always be protected include:

• Men: 53% of men say this, compared with 40% of women.
• White Americans: Half of White adults say press freedom should always be protected; 35% of Black adults say the same.
• College graduates: U.S. adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (53%) are more likely than those with a high school diploma or less (38%) to say press freedom should always be protected, even if it means false information can be published.
• Republicans: 57% of Republicans say this, compared with 38% of Democrats.

These partisan differences align with a previous Center study that found that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to support interventions by the U.S. government or technology companies in moderating false information online.

Note: Here are the  questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Research Analyst Naomi Forman-Katz and Research Assistant Christopher St. Aubin contributed to this analysis.

• Free Speech & Press
• Freedom of the Press
• Partisanship & Issues

Kirsten Eddy is a senior researcher focusing on news and information at Pew Research Center .

Most U.S. journalists are concerned about press freedoms

The role of alternative social media in the news and information environment, journalists sense turmoil in their industry amid continued passion for their work, fast facts about americans’ views of social media companies as trump-twitter dispute grows, 5 charts on views of press freedom around the world, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Knowledge Base
• Other Papers

Freedom of the Press Essay

• Author StudySaurus
• Category Other Papers

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Eighty-seven percent of people in the world do not have Freedom of the Press. In 2015, there was the least amount of Free Press in twelve years! In America, we are lucky to have Freedom of the Press. This freedom guarantees the right to publish all true news, even if it goes against the government. However, this concept didn’t always exist. According to one article, “One of the earliest events key to shaping this emerging concept came in the wake of the 1734 arrest of German-born New York newspaper editor John Peter Zenger.” Zenger was charged seditious libel after publishing reprimands about Governor William Cosby. He was declared not guilty because the articles were correct with their information. Another event that set the stage for Freedom of the Press was how many colonists, such as Thomas Paine, published pamphlets as British rule became more unpopular. This allowed the Founding Fathers to recognize the need for a Free Press because it allows those pamphlets to be written, even though they go against the king. The Anti-Federalists were strong supporters of Freedom of the Press. When the constitution was being written, they were not in favour of it because they thought that it gave too much power to a central government that could take away basic rights of the people. Therefore, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, including the Freedom of the Press as part of the First Amendment, that gave rights to the people that the strong central government couldn’t take away. The Bill of Rights was submitted to states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and passed on December 15, 1791. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were determined advocates for Freedom of the Press. Jefferson originally told Madison about the idea of this freedom, who in turn became a strong supporter and proposed it as well as other liberties protected in the Bill of Rights. In the words of James Madison, “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” Madison’s hard work paid off, and now, in the words of an article, “The Freedom of Press clause makes it clear that the First Amendment is meant to protect not only freedom to speak, but also freedom to publish and distribute speech.” Freedom of the Press protects people’s right to publish what they believe. It also gives people the freedom to share any injustice through writing, which causes awareness of problems so a solution can be found. However, like other rights, it can be abused.

Near v. Minnesota was an important case that declared some limits on the press unconstitutional. In 1927 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, J.M. Near, who has been described as “anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-black and anti-labor” and Howard A. Guilford began publishing The Saturday Press. In Minnesota, the Public Nuisance Law of 1925 (aka the “Minnesota Gag Law”) targeted people who constituted a “public nuisance” by writing a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper.” The Saturday Press began speaking out against future three-term Governor of Minnesota Floyd B. Olson and other Minnesota officials. Because the newspaper was insulting government employees and because t had anti-Semitic views, Olson filed a complaint against Near and Guilford under the Public Nuisance Law. It went to court in November 1927. Olson was the plaintiff, and was also referred to as “Minnesota” because he represented Minnesota officials. He supported the Public Nuisance Law, and believed that The Saturday Press went against it. The defendant was Near, publisher of The Saturday Press. His point of view was that he had Freedom of the Press and could publish what he wanted to, and also that the Public Nuisance Law violated Freedom of the Press In 1931, the case went to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Majority Opinion: “We hold the statute [Public Nuisance Law]… to be an infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” “…the fact that liberty of press may be abused does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from prior restraint…a more serious evil would result if officials could determine which stories can be published…” [this means that even though it can be abused, we must keep the Freedom of the Press or the government will choose what can get published and the people won’t have a voice]

The Supreme Court mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment and not the First because the Fourteenth Amendment says that states must have Freedom of the Press. The First Amendment only prevents Congress from making laws that go against this freedom, not state government, The Supreme Court’s decision did not really favor any side. They said that the Minnesota law which targeted “malicious” or “scandalous” newspapers were unconstitutional. As long as the information was true, a newspaper can report a terrible deed someone committed. However, the Supreme Court didn’t support The Saturday Press because it was anti-Semitic. Even though the case didn’t have a clear winner, it was still very significant. In the words of an article, “Near v. Minnesota… was a landmark the United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the Freedom of the Press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication.” Without this case, states might not enforce Freedom of the Press!

Without Freedom of the Press, we would live in a dystopian society. Writers would not be able to publish the truth if it reveals something bad about the government because they would be jailed! However, as Near v. Minnesota proves, this freedom isn’t always used correctly. As one article says, “Nearly all newspapers in the first century of American history were openly partisan, and many published scandalous and vicious rumors about public officials and others they opposed.” These newspapers are similar to the magazines you see in grocery store checkout counters. Both publish fraudulent information that isn’t true and hurts people. However, Freedom of the Press also can help people come together to rally against a cause! Civil Rights Leaders used many Freedoms of Expression, including the press, to fight for their beliefs. After doing this research report, I now feel grateful that I live in a country that has Freedom of the Press while other places in the world do not. This freedom, which seems so simple, is actually very complex and has been challenged many times, like in Near v. Minnesota. People have the right to know the truth. With Freedom of the Press, publishers have the right to publish the truth, even if it goes against the government. I’m glad that this will prevent the government from being really secretive and not letting the people know the truth. As one author writes, “A free press serves as a watchdog for the people, exposing the excesses and failings of government.” Today, people still want to know the truth about the government. In a recent violation of free press, journalists were mad because the White House was denying them the right to photograph important events there. They sent a letter to Jay Carney, Press Secretary at the White House on November 21, 2013.

From the letter: While certain of these events may appear “private” in nature, the decision of the White House to release its own contemporaneous photograph(s) suggests that the White House believes these events are, in fact, newsworthy and not private.

The restrictions raise constitutional concerns; the journalists should have Freedom of the Press to take pictures. To be an American means you have the right to write, publish, and read the truth, with Freedom of the Press. This idea, formed long ago by John Peter Zenger, is still being debated about to this very day. However, I hope that one day, all people in all countries will be able to enjoy the liberties I am grateful to have in America.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

Threats to freedom of press: Violence, disinformation & censorship

The free flow of ideas: Freedom of the press, the journalists on the frontline

The way we see the world and act on it depends on the information we have. This is why freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental rights, and the free flow of ideas is a key driver of vibrant societies and human progress. UNESCO works to reinforce the tools, skills and conditions that make these rights real.

Peter R. De Vries was on his way to a car park, walking past crowds of people enjoying post-work drinks in the heart of Amsterdam. It was the early evening of 6 July 2021 and the veteran crime journalist had just left a nearby TV studio, where he had appeared as a talk show guest. 

De Vries was a household name in the Netherlands, where his own TV show had run for 17 years, working with crime victims’ families, pursuing unsolved cases and exposing miscarriages of justice. The journalist had recently refused police protection after receiving death threats. A year earlier, he had agreed to act as an adviser to the key prosecution witness against the suspected head of a cocaine trafficking gang. 

As De Vries walked to his car, several bullets were fired at him. He died from his injuries nine days later. 

Threats and violence against journalists

De Vries’ death prompted outpourings of condemnation and anger in Europe. Yet, many journalists and reporters around the world today risk their lives to uncover the truth. Every four days a journalist is killed in the world. In 2020 alone, according to UNESCO, 62 journalists were killed just for doing their jobs. Between 2006 and 2020, over 1,200 media professionals lost their lives in the same way. In nine out of ten cases, the killers go unpunished.

In many countries investigating corruption, trafficking, human rights violations, and political or environmental issues puts journalists’ lives at risk.

62 journalists killed in 2020,

just for doing their jobs: UNESCO

Crimes against journalists have an enormous impact on society as a whole, because they prevent people from making informed decisions.

To help create the kind of environment journalists need to perform their vital work, UNESCO has set up several initiatives, including a global plan of action for the safety of journalists, in order to support Member States to establish or improve mechanisms for prevention, protection and prosecution to bring justice to cases of murdered journalists. One key aspect of UNESCO’s work is first and foremost to report and publicly condemn all cases of killing of journalists. UNESCO also produces training materials and best practices to help improve journalists’ skills and knowledge on international standards for freedom of expression, investigative journalism and reporting on conflicts.

For the past 40 years, UNESCO’s International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC)   has focused on targeting the most pressing issues concerning communication development around the world. It helps keep journalists safe, supports the development of media in countries where it is most needed, promotes freedom of expression and public access to information.

UNESCO's initiatives

Fostering Freedom of Expression

Women journalists facing risks and abuse

Across the world, journalists face countless threats every day, ranging from kidnapping, torture and arbitrary detention to disinformation campaigns and harassment, especially on social media. Women journalists are at particular risk. 

According to UNESCO research, 73 per cent of women journalists surveyed said they had been threatened, intimidated and insulted online in connection with their work. Often, the failure to investigate and address online attacks has real-life consequences for women journalists, affecting their mental and physical health. In some cases, online threats can escalate to physical violence and even murder, as the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017 demonstrated.

#JournalistsToo:

For many years, Caruana Galizia had been the most prominent investigative journalist in Malta. She had worked as a columnist and editor in various newspapers. She later set up the website Running Commentary, where she published some of her most significant investigative journalism, exposing tax abuse and corruption in Malta and abroad. Harassment, threats and attempts to silence the journalist had been a constant presence throughout her career.

Online threats and violence against women journalists are designed to belittle, humiliate and shame them, as well as induce fear, silence and discredit them professionally. To respond to increasing threats against women journalists, UNESCO has published a research paper aimed at associations, politicians and governments: The Chilling . It seeks to promote discussion about effective legislative and organizational initiatives that are designed to protect women journalists.

Training judges and prosecutors to defend press freedom

Caruana Galizia’s biggest fear was that her example of physical threats, online harassments and libel lawsuits might discourage other journalists from speaking out. At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia was facing 48 libel suits. Award-winning journalist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Ressa also faced several lawsuits before being found guilty of libel in the Philippines in 2020.

What you are seeing is death by a thousand cuts for press freedom and democracy. It joins the messaging that was pushed out on social media that “journalists equal criminals.

Ressa and a former colleague at the news site she founded, Rappler, were convicted of cyber libel by a court in Manila after they published an article linking a businessman to illegal activities. During her career, Ressa has been arrested and has been subject to a sustained campaign of gendered online abuse, threats and harassment, which at one point, resulted in her receiving an average of over 90 hateful messages an hour on Facebook.

Often based on meritless or exaggerated claims, these lawsuits are brought in order to pressure a journalist or human rights defender, rather than to vindicate a right.

That is why judges and prosecutors play an important role in protecting journalists from threats and harassment, as well as promoting prompt and effective criminal proceedings when attacks occur.

When attacks against journalists go unpunished, the legal system and safety frameworks have failed everyone.

In recent years, UNESCO has trained nearly 23,000 judicial officials, including judges, prosecutors and lawyers, through several workshops on media and journalist law, training courses and online webinars, in partnership with universities and educational institutions like the Knight Center for Journalism at the University of Austin, Texas (USA). Training focuses on international standards related to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists, placing a particular focus on issues of impunity. In 2021, UNESCO’s online conference The role of the judiciary and international cooperation to foster safety of journalists – What works? explored effective ways in which judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as regional human rights courts and judicial training institutes, can combat impunity for crimes against journalists.

The fight against misinformation and censorship

The threats to freedom of expression and democracy also come from misinformation and censorship. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing pandemic of misinformation have demonstrated that access to facts and science can be a matter of life and death.  In the first three months of 2020, almost 6,000 people around the world were hospitalized because of coronavirus misinformation, according to a paper published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene . During this period, researchers say at least 800 people may have died due to misinformation related to COVID-19.

In May 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic, the Knight Center, with the support of UNESCO and the World Health Organization (WHO), launched an online course on how to empower journalists, communication workers and content creators countering the phenomenon of disinformation related to the pandemic. The course attracted nearly 9,000 students from 162 countries. ‘2020 was surely the most important year for the fact-checking community,’ said journalist Cristina Tardáguila, who was the course instructor and has been involved in global initiatives against disinformation as associate director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Journalism in a Pandemic: Covering COVID-19 Now and in the Future is an online self-directed course available in eight languages:  Arabic ,  Chinese ,  English ,  French ,  Hindi ,  Portuguese ,  Russian and  Spanish . 

Journalists covering the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines have received support through a live webinar, Covering the COVID-19 Vaccines: What Journalists Need to Know.  The recording is now available in 13 languages : Arabic, Bambara, Chinese, Dari, English, French, Guarani, Hindi, Pashto, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Wolof.

The media can also take an important part in understanding complex issues such as climate change and fighting the misinformation that surrounds it. In the face of climate change, journalists have the ability to enlighten the public and be the link between scientists and citizens by highlighting the urgency of the situation, but also tell stories that are positive and inspire solutions.

Getting the Message Across: Reporting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific

UNESCO has supported the publication of a handbook for journalists covering climate change. Journalists are key to ensuring that stories of destruction as well as of resistance are shared, in order to get the message across about climate change and avoid misinformation.

The power of community radios

The struggle to protect journalists and promote freedom of expression is just one of the pillars helping build knowledge societies that have the power to transform economies and communities. Universal access to information and knowledge as well as the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity are essential to building peace, sustainable economic development and intercultural dialogue.

The Syrian Hour is a UNESCO-funded project that produces a bi-weekly radio programme, aired on Yarmouk FM radio station in Irbid, northern Jordan, where there is a large Syrian refugee population. 

Syrian Hour

The programme trains young Syrians in radio broadcasting skills to host the shows while the shows themselves provide vital information and support to displaced Syrian refugees residing in Jordan. Majd Al Sammouri is one of the young people being trained to host The Syrian Hour. 

The first paths of my dreams were at the Faculty of Media and Mass Communication at the University of Damascus, a road I thought was lost forever after finding refuge in Jordan. Yarmouk FM was the compass that put me back to the streets of my dreams.

Many Syrian refugees who fled the war to Jordan still lack awareness about their security, liberty and protection rights and what is available to them in terms of food-assistance, education, health or psychosocial support. Often, their precarious refugee status makes them too afraid to approach authorities and humanitarian organizations.

Majd and his young colleagues provide much-needed reliable information and support to the refugee community.

Community radio is a powerful tool because it has the potential to reach out to people with little or no access to information. It is an efficient mechanism for educating and informing people living in remote areas about key issues such as health, education and sustainable development.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios as a means to facilitate social communication and support democratic processes within societies.

Community radios are also being used to promote oral traditions. For example, in Bandafassi, Senegal, the community radio broadcasts stories and proverbs, traditional music and the history of the various villages. This is one of the many small steps towards building pluralistic and diverse media that provide free impartial information options to empower the public to make their choices towards peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios

Fostering freedom of speech.

UNESCO works to foster free, independent and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online. Media that adhere to this model enhance freedom of speech as well as contribute to peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

#TruthNeverDies

#TruthNeverDies is a campaign developed jointly by UNESCO and communication agency DDB Paris to commemorate the  International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists  on 2 November.

Women Make the News 

Women Make the News is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness on issues relating to gender equality in and through the media, driving debate and encouraging action-oriented solutions to meet global objectives.

#HerMomentsMatter  

#HerMomentsMatter is a continuation of UNESCO’s World Radio Day campaign and aims to promote fairer coverage of women athletes. Women represent just 7 per cent of sportspeople seen, heard or read about in the media, while only 4 per cent of sports stories focus primarily on women. 

Remote Radio Week

Community media, whether broadcast or online, are key to ensuring media pluralism and freedom of expression. They are also an indicator of a healthy democratic society.

In partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO has launched a free online training for radio stations to develop their capacities to broadcast remotely.

AI and Facial Recognition webinar

This webinar about artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition, organized by UNESCO, touches on the pressing issues of facial recognition and the concerns it raises about the widespread adoption of AI and human rights. As AI is developing rapidly, it is important to understand its developments, which may have profound and potentially adverse impacts on individuals and society.

Webinar on Artificial Intelligence and Facial Recognition

World atlas of languages.

The World Atlas of Languages is an unprecedented initiative to preserve, revitalize and promote global linguistic diversity and multilingualism as a unique heritage and treasure of humanity. The project aims to stimulate new research and innovation, create demand for new language resources and tools, help support language policy and legislation, and forge new partnerships and collaboration in the global community to open up access to information.  

World Digital Library

Launched in 2009, the World Digital Library is a project of the U.S. Library of Congress, with the support of UNESCO, and contributions from libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and international organizations around the world. The WDL seeks to preserve and share some of the world’s most important cultural objects, increasing access to cultural treasures and significant historical documents, to enable discovery, scholarship and use.

UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize

Created in 1997, the annual UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize honours an individual, organisation or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defence and, or promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially when this has been achieved in the face of danger. It is named after Guillermo Cano Isaza, a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper El Espectador in Bogotá, Colombia on 17 December 1986.

UNESCO / Guillermo Cano

World Press Freedom Prize

Related items

• Information and communication

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Constitution
• Constitutional law

The fourth pillar of Indian Democracy: Freedom of the Press

This article has been written by Anubhav Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

In the world’s largest democracy, the freedom of speech and expression is the most crucial fundamental right availed to the citizens by the constitution. The media is considered as the fourth pillar of democracy and it plays a vital role in a country’s social, political, economical and international affairs. Thus, it goes without saying that free press is a sine qua non for a democracy to survive and thrive and preserve the ethos of good and transparent governance. 

In the past, India has witnessed the rise of political parties (Modi government), falling of the governments (Rajiv Gandhi’s government), crashing of the economy(2008 crisis) and stock markets getting skyrocketed (bullish Indian stock market after US-China Trade war ), all based on the information broadcasted regarding them by the media. A country’s international reputation and the global impression are largely influenced by the kind of news which prevails about that particular country in the international press. 

What is Freedom of Press?

Freedom of the press refers to the minimal interference of the state in the operation of press on any form of communication including, print (newspapers, magazines, journals, reports); audio (radios, podcasts); video (news channels, OTT platforms like YouTube) and over other electronic mediums like news apps, social media feeds, etc. 

The liberty of the press in the words of Lord Mansfield is, “consists of printing without any license subject to the consequences of law”. Therefore, we can conclude that freedom of the press refers to having the freedom to express what one pleases without any prior permission from law.

Why Freedom of the Press?

As per Indian Newspapers v Union of India , the objective of the press is to supplement the public interest by printing the facts and opinions without which the citizens of the country cannot make well informed rational judgments. Freedom of the press is in the crux of social and political inter-course. It is the paramount duty of the judiciary to prop the freedom of the press and refute all laws and executive actions that interfere with it as opposed to the constitutional provisions.

Press is a medium of availing knowledge and spreading the vital information of events, developments, incidents of national interest to the whole nation and thus free and fair operation of the press makes the backbone of civil society which is capable of critical and independent thinking and forms its opinion about the country and the government after scrutinizing the facts of the situation wisely. 

Article 19 and Freedom of Press

Freedom of the press is implicit under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the freedom of speech and expression under Part III (fundamental rights). It does not explicitly provide the term “freedom of the press” anywhere but it becomes quite clear from this Constituent assembly debate when Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar replies to a question of “Article 19 not including ‘freedom of the press’” saying that the press is just another method of quoting an individual citizen and when anyone chooses to write in a newspaper, they are merely exercising their right of expression and thus, there is absolutely no need to separately mentions the freedom of the press.

Scope of Freedom of Press under Article 19(1)(a)

Freedom to spread information .

Without this liberty, freedom of the press is nugatory. Though this right is also implicit in the freedom of expression, Romesh Thapar v State of Madras makes it explicit. The mainline of difference between the freedom of the press and freedom of expression for an individual is that an individual can’t communicate to masses on his own, but a press can by means of its publications on various mediums like print, broadcasts, electronic, etc. Thus, freedom to spread information is an intrinsic part of freedom of the press.

Freedom to criticize 

The press, just like individuals have the liberty to criticize the government, its officials, its policies, its actions, its laws, its statements, etc. However, the press cannot take abuse this right and cannot provoke the public against the government or cannot abet riots, rebels, or  mutiny or insecurity of the state or the government.

Freedom to receive the information 

Again, the heart of the liberty to press. If the press is not equipped with the information, it cannot empower the public with the knowledge and thus, the right of expression will become futile because there will be no access to information on whose basis anything can be expressed. 

Freedom to conduct interview

This right is necessary to bring in first hand knowledge from the experts on the particulars subjects and to enlighten the society at large. Though this right is not absolute, there are three caveats to it as follow: 

• Interview will only take place on the consent of the interviewee;
• Interview shall stop when the interviewee wants to it to be;
• Interviewer can’t force interviewee to answer any question against his/her will.

Freedom to report court proceedings

In the words of Jeremy Bentham, “the soul of justice is publicity”. In Sahara India Real Estate Corpn ltd v SEBI , SC held that it is the right of the media to report the judicial proceedings. In Saroj Iyer v Maharashtra Medical (Council) of Indian Medicine, SC held that the right to print faithful reports of the legal proceedings witnessed is available even if it is against quasi-judicial tribunals.

Freedom to attend and report legislative proceedings

Article 361 of the Constitution equips us with the right of publishing a kosher report of the parliamentary proceedings. The only limitation of this freedom is that there should be no mala fide intention behind such publications. When the right of reporting of legislative proceedings which is implicitly envisaged in the right of expression (A.19) is in discord with parliamentary privileges (A.105 and A. 194), the right of speech and expression shall overshadow the parliamentary privileges. Today it is mandatory to do live telecast of the parliamentary proceedings.

Freedom to act as an advertising platform

We know that the major income of most of the presses comes from the advertisement, whether it is a radio, or news channel, or mobile application, or newspaper. It was after Tata Press v Mahanagar Telephone Nigam that SC incorporated the right to advertisement as a part of the right to freedom of expression.

Freedom to broadcast

In the modern age of technology, power to broadcast is essential as it is one of the major channels to spread information. This right not only includes broadcasting on news channels, radios, but also on the internet like websites, blogs, mobile applications. We have witnessed some of the most reliable journalism on these platforms like Alt News, ThePrint, TheWire, Quint, etc. 

Reasonable Limitations of Press’ Freedom

We know that unrestricted freedom, that is, liberty without any reasonable restrictions on it always hampers the very purpose of granting that freedom in the first place, that is to empower the individuals as it backfires and makes the rights of individual collapse with one another. As freedom of press derives its powers from Article 19(1)(a), it is also subject to the reasonable limitations imposed on A.19(1)(a) under A19(2) which are explained as follow: 

Sovereignty and integrity of the state

It was inserted by an amendment to control the extreme reactions of the people, who were protesting for separate entities of the different regions of India. Any form of speech or any expression which hampers the sovereignty or integrity of the state would be covered under this restriction. The right of freedom to speech and expression can’t be allowed to be used as a weapon against the sovereignty or integrity of the state. 

At this juncture, it is essential to take cognisance of the fact that ‘sedition’ is no ground to impose reasonable restrictions as envisaged under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Security of the state

The freedom of expression cannot be exercised in a way so that it becomes a threat to the security of the state in any manner. Any communication which incites the people to cause social unrest, rebels, violence, riots, etc against the state and its subjects would be covered under this restriction.

In State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi , SC held that the speeches made by any person (citizen or non-citizen) which encourage the people to commit offences like dacoity, murder, robbery, etc is without a doubt a threat to the security of the state. Hence such a speech will be considered as a prejudice towards the sovereignty or integrity of the state, and the order to stop or curtail such communication is covered under reasonable restrictions of A.19(2).

Public Order

This term was inserted by the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951 . This clause was added to curtail the effects of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras where the SC had held that the right to circulation is an intrinsic organ of Right to freedom of expression.

The term “public order” has a broad meaning and covers a multitude of actions which may endanger the security of the state. In Madhu Limaye v Sub Divisional Magistrate Monghyr SC held that the term “public order” can be construed as “no insurrections or riots or disturbance to public peace.” 

In Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP the constitutionality of the Section 295A of the Indian  Penal Code   (IPC) was being questioned. The argument advanced was that the mentioned section infringes the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Part III in Article 19(1)(a) under the Constitution. The petitioner, who was the printer, publisher and the editor was held guilty of offences under Section 295A of the IPC. Further, it was contended that this section has no protection under the reasonable restrictions of A.19(2) of the constitution. The SC dismissed this argument and held that if an individual by exercising his/her right the freedom of expression causes public disorder, then he or she can be prosecuted under the mentioned section which comes within the purview of reasonable restrictions.

Decency or morality

For preserving the decency or morality in the country, the state has the authority to limit the freedom of speech and expression of an individual. Further elaboration of this ground is reflected in Sections 292 to 294 of the IPC. The mentioned sections list downs some acts as crime such as selling obscene publications to young individuals, making indecent gestures in Public places etc. In Ranjit Udeshi v State of Maharashtra SC held that the S. 292 of IPC is constitutional as it prohibits obscenity in public places and promulgates public decency and morality. It was further supplemented in Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v State of Maharashtra by SC that while tackling the question of decency and morality, the court has to consider the proposition as to whether or not the indecent or immoral acts were sufficient to pollute the mind of the young individuals or is there a possibility that their minds would become depraved.

Contempt of Court

There is no doubt that freedom of speech and expression is very crucial for societal development, but on the other hand, providing and maintaining justice and equity is also equally substantial. Though, the freedom of speech and expression reckons but it can’t be wielded to cancel out courts’ actions of justice.

The SC under Article 129 & the HCs under Article 215 of the constitution is empowered to take punitive actions for contempt of court. It was further held in  C.K. Daphtary v O.P. Gupta it was held that the S.228 of IPC and A.129 of the constitution are valid and are covered within the purview of reasonable restrictions enshrined in Article 19(2) of the constitution. Thus,we can infer from the above discussion that the freedom of speech and expression is prone to Articles 19(2), 129, and 215 of the constitution.

Article 19(1)(a) in no manner gives a license to cause damage to the reputation of a person in the name of freedom of speech and expression. Causing damage to an individual’s reputation is considered as defamation and is a stringent limitation to the right of freedom of speech and expression.

No one is allowed to expose a person to hate, ridicule or contempt by means of any expression, signs or gestures. Defamation is considered as a very stringent act and therefore it is prohibited by the Civil Laws of Torts.Also, it is an offence under S. 499 of the IPC. As something is enshrined as wrong under two statutes, it is obvious that it has a defence under reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Friendly relations with Foreign states.

Just like with the term “public order”, this ground was also inserted in Article 19(2) of the Constitution via Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 . This main objective of incorporating this restriction was to counter the antagonistic and mala fide propaganda against any foreign country which may have friendly connections with the Republic of India. 

Such activities can jeopardize the government’s efforts to promulgate and maintain friendly relations with foreign nations and bring lucrative results out of those results for India. In Jagan Nath v Union of India , SC held that all commonwealth countries are foreign countries for the purpose of Article 19 (2). However, another fact to take cognisance of is that, members of the commonwealth countries including Pakistan aren’t the members of foreign states for the purpose of the Indian constitution.

Incitement to an offence

As per the criminal jurisprudence, the act of incitement or abetment to an offence is a distinct and independent offence per se. Exercising the freedom of speech and expression to incite an offence would be considered as a threat to the public order.

Just like the terms “public order” and “friendly relations with foreign states”, this ground of reasonable restriction was incorporated in the constitution via the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. In State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi , it was held by SC that any communication which leads to incitement of any criminal act can be restricted and any order for such ban will fall within the purview of reasonable restrictions envisaged in Article 19(2) of constitution.

The above mentioned seven grounds of reasonable restrictions act as a line in the sand for the demarcation of the right to freedom of speech and expression which also includes the right to freedom of press. So, one can infer that the right to free press prevails within the boundaries of reasonable restrictions enshrined in Article 19(2) of the constitution.

Conclusion 

Currently, India’s rank in the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders is 140th amongst 180 countries. This rank has taken some serious declines in the last decade from 133 to 136 in 2017; 136 to 138 in 2018; 138 to 140 in 2019. This dip is due to the beating, prosecution and even deaths of journalists on the line of work. We often see videos of journalists getting lynched and being publicly beaten for trying to expose politicians or government officials. This shows some serious concern pertaining to the freedom given to press in the country with the world’s biggest Constitution and bureaucratic setup. 

Press is supposed to be the voice of the public to the government, but in modern times, a contrast to this can be observed, where some of the major mainstream media houses are marketing the politicals parties while criticizing the oppositions parties and not discussing the relevant issues like public welfare, corruption, analysis of government schemes, etc. Though it is also true that forums like WhatsApp, YouTube, and Facebook which are totally independent are have become prone to fake news leading to mob lynching, fear-mongering, hate speech, propaganda spreading and indecency promoting, which highlights the need of some reasonable restrictions of the press.

Though, without a shred of doubt, for preserving democracy and not promoting informed citizenry in the nation, we have to give reasonable freedom to the press. The present government has tried to curb this freedom by amending RTI Act, Whistleblower Act, and proposing the Sedition Act in the parliament which in the opinion of the author goes against the basic tenets of the constitution of tearing apart the very fabric of democracy. 

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, k.c. gajapati narayan deo vs. state of orissa (1953), g. basi reddy vs. international crops research institute (2003) , leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

3-Day Bootcamp on How to get a law firm job

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Search the United Nations

• UN Secretary-General
• UNESCO Director-General
• UN Observances

  As the [COVID-19] pandemic spreads, it has also given rise to a second pandemic of misinformation, from harmful health advice to wild conspiracy theories. The press provides the antidote: verified, scientific, fact-based news and analysis. UN Secretary-General António Guterres  

A Press for the Planet: Journalism in the face of the environmental crisis

In 2024, World Press Freedom Day is dedicated to the importance of journalism and freedom of expression in the context of the current global environmental crisis.

Awareness of all aspects of the global environmental crisis and its consequences is essential to build democratic societies. Journalistic work is indispensable for this purpose.

Journalists encounter significant challenges in seeking and disseminating information on contemporary issues, such as supply-chains problems, climate migration, extractive industries, illegal mining, pollution, poaching, animal trafficking, deforestation, or climate change. Ensuring the visibility of these issues is crucial for promoting peace and democratic values worldwide.

In the context of the world’s triple planetary crisis —climate change, biodiversity loss, and air pollution— dis-/misinformation campaigns challenge knowledge and scientific research methods. Attacks on the validity of science pose a serious threat to pluralistic and informed public debate. Indeed, misleading and false information about climate change can, in some cases, undermine international efforts to address them.

Dis-/misinformation about environmental issues can lead to a lack of public and political support for climate action, effective policies, and the protection of vulnerable communities affected by climate change, as well as of women and girls, as climate change tends to exacerbate existing inequalities.

To achieve sustainable development, it is necessary for journalists to report accurately, timely, and comprehensively on environmental issues and their consequences, as well as on possible solutions.

This requires a comprehensive strategy that includes:

• Preventing and protecting against crimes committed against journalists.   
• Ensuring the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of scientific research, and access to key sources of information, in addition to combating dis-/misinformation through journalism.   
• Promoting the plurality, diversity, and viability of media, especially regional, local, indigenous, and/or community-based media.   
• Ensuring that the governance of digital platforms foster the transparency of technology companies, their accountability, due diligence, user empowerment, and content moderation and curation based on international human rights’ standards, as indicated in UNESCO’s Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms.
• Promoting Media and Information Literacy programs to empower users with skills to engage and think critically in the digital environment.

Read the concept note

World Press Freedom Day: Pioneering Foreign Correspondent Edith Lederer on Why Journalism Matters

Origins and purpose of the day.

World Press Freedom Day was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 1993, following the recommendation of UNESCO's General Conference. Since then, 3 May, the anniversary of the Declaration of Windhoek is celebrated worldwide as World Press Freedom Day.

After 30 years, the historic connection made between the freedom to seek, impart and receive information and the public good remains as relevant as it was at the time of its signing. Special commemorations of the 30th anniversary are planned to take place during World Press Freedom Day International Conference.

May 3 acts as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom. It is also a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics. It is an opportunity to:

• celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom;
• assess the state of press freedom throughout the world;
• defend the media from attacks on their independence;
• and pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

31st World Press Freedom Day Conference

The 31 st edition of World Press Freedom Day will highlight the significant role played by the press, journalism, access, and dissemination of information to ensure and secure a sustainable future that respects the rights of individuals and their diversity of voices, as well as gender equality.

2 - 4 May 2024

Gabriela mistral cultural center, santiago, chile.

Side Events

Celebrations around the world

UNESCO and partners are organizing celebrations around the world.  Register your event  in order to feature it in UNESCO's list of celebrations .

Safety of Journalists

Find out what the United Nations is doing on the safety of journalists .

Fostering Freedom of Expression

As the United Nations agency with a specific mandate to promote “the free flow of ideas by word and image”, UNESCO works to foster free, independent and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online. Media development in this mode enhances freedom of expression, and it contributes to peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights

UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize

Created in 1997, the annual Prize honours a person, organization or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defence and/or promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially when achieved in the face of danger. The Prize is named in honour of Guillermo Cano Isaza , a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper El Espectador in Bogotá, Colombia in1986. 

Why do we mark International Days?

International days and weeks are occasions to educate the public on issues of concern, to mobilize political will and resources to address global problems, and to celebrate and reinforce achievements of humanity. The existence of international days predates the establishment of the United Nations, but the UN has embraced them as a powerful advocacy tool. We also mark other UN observances .

• Subscribe Now

Why does press freedom matter? Rappler journalists, community answer

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Why does press freedom matter?

This year’s #WorldPressFreedomDay, held every May 3, took the theme “Information as a Public Good.” It was an affirmation of the importance of information in the age of disinformation and within a damaged information ecosystem.  (READ: 6 things you can do to support press freedom in the Philippines )

In the Philippines, press freedom has suffered more during the coronavirus pandemic. The country dropped two places this year in the Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, now ranking 138th out of 180 countries.

RSF cited the continued attacks of the administration on the media and the government-backed shutdown of the country’s largest broadcaster, ABS-CBN. On top of this, RSF also cited the online harassment and red-tagging of journalists and perceived enemies of the Duterte administration.

For journalists, the commemoration of World Press Freedom Day is a call to remember why journalism must persist despite the growing risks and dangers of the profession.

This year, Rappler CEO Maria Ressa was awarded the 2021 UNESCO Guillermo Cano Press Freedom Laureate for her “unerring fight for freedom of expression.”

What press freedom means

To remember the important work journalists do to uphold democracy, several Rappler multimedia reporters, Rappler+ members, and Movers shared their insights on why they believe in press freedom. 

Having covered security and crime, multimedia reporter Rambo Talabong shared the harrowing realities faced by targets of the administration.

“Of the hundreds [of stories] published with my name, most of them carry the words ‘killed,’ ‘shot down,’ ‘gunned down,’ and ‘fought back,’” said Talabong.

Now covering the House of Representatives and local governments, Talabong said journalism must document the stories of today to help communities remember and learn from these occurrences.

“We are not here to tell stories to save, but to tell stories to remember. We tell them so that we do not forget that the killings, the injustice, the corruption, and the impunity continue. And that they should not. We hope they do not,” he added.

With attacks and harassment being done to silence media who are critical of the administration, Rappler journalist Mara Cepeda said that this worst time is also the best time to be a journalist.

“It doesn’t get any easier really. But in the face of authoritarian regimes out to silent us, we journalists must push on – to hold our leaders accountable and to make space for the voices that should be heard,” Cepeda said. 

Support for independent media

The celebration of world press freedom also came as a reminder to government institutions around the world to uphold their commitment to ensure a free press in their respective countries. 

Rappler+ member and Project Coordinator of Foundation for Media Alternatives Bernice Soriano said that it was important and crucial for Filipinos to support independent media so journalists are free to report on what is happening even if it criticizes the government or other institutions.

“This is crucial because it promotes an informed citizenry by providing access to information to everyone. Also being critical is not antagonization- it actually paves the way for improvement and progress, by learning from mistakes,” Soriano said.

“Press freedom is needed for democracy, as it is one of its pillars. Without this the citizens will not be informed on actual happenings and events, whether good or bad, and cannot make informed, independent choices,” she added.

Another Rappler+ member Jojo Geronimo echoed this, citing how the media should also defend itself to remain independent and vigilant in the face of attacks and harassment. 

“In this ‘alternative reality’ falsehood passes as truth; and exaggeration and half-truths coalesce in a network of coordinated disinformation. The state can use this weapon, but corporations, as ‘persons’ can claim individual rights,” Geronimo added.

How can data journalism drive action?

Standing firm with the truth

As disinformation continues to spread online, Rappler Mover Jam Marciano emphasized how the fight for press freedom was not only a fight for journalists, but also for every Filipino.

“As journalists, it is our right to report stories and make the government accountable. This is not just about writing and reporting, but our job is to help in solving the social injustices we are facing….Don’t be afraid to speak up. Use your voice because it is your right. Let’s continue fighting for press freedom,” Marciano said. 

Another Mover, French Bandong talked of the need to stand firm when writing stories.

As a campus journalist, he narrated his experience back when he was in seventh grade when he was called out in front of the whole school because he wrote an opinion piece confronting school issues.

“That day, I realized I had a voice – a voice that opts to speak and insists to be heard,” he said. 

As he looked back into that incident, he added this: “Dear 13 year-old me, that was traumatic but I am so proud of you for being so brave. Now, we see the importance of campus journalists in shedding greater light on marginal voice, especially in times of injustice and impunity.” 

Rappler has a line-up of activities for the entire month of May to commemorate the importance of press freedom. This includes sessions of MovePH’s fact-checking webinar series on May 21 and a special session on May 28. To know more about this, follow MovePH on Facebook . – Rappler.com 

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, philippine media, nery, pamintuan, 5 others honored as ‘journalists of courage and impact’.

Retired Filipino journalist Ruben Alabastro writes 30 

Global media groups urge SC to overturn Maria Ressa’s cyber libel conviction

KBP pushes harder for removal of reporter testimony clause in drug law

The Philippines now has an ‘Eddie Garcia Law’, 5 years after workplace accident

World Press Freedom Day

Artists tackle role of journalism through editorial cartoon contest.

Students call for better campus journalism law, stronger alliance vs censorship

Environmental journalism is an increasingly dangerous profession, UN chief says

On World Press Freedom Day, Marcos says he appreciates journalists

Philippines falls 2 places in 2024 World Press Freedom Index

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Essay on Freedom of the Press for Students and Others in Simple language

Table of Contents

Freedom of The Press Essay: Freedom of the press or media is the belief system that communications to the public through the medium of print, television and, these days, internet should be free of oversight from the government. Different countries have different provisions to guarantee this right. Below you will find essays on freedom of the press and how it relates to India and its role and importance in a democracy. The essays vary in length and should prove useful for your exams. Feel free to select the essays as per your need.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Also Check: World Press Freedom Day 2024

Long and Short Essay on Freedom of the Press in English

We have provided below short and long essays on freedom of press in English. These freedom of press essays have been written in simple yet effective sentences to convey a fact based information.

After reading these freedom of press essays you will know what is freedom of press and what role does it plays in a democracy.

Also you will know how freedom of press is essential for keeping democracy safe and making the voice of people heard.

You can use these essays on Freedom of Press in your school or college competition where you have to write an essay, give a speech or take part in debate competitions.

Essay on Freedom of Press and Judiciary – Essay 1 (350 words)

Introduction

A free press and a free judiciary are two very important cornerstones of a democracy. Together, they are responsible for ensuring transparency and holding those in power accountable for their policies and actions. Although their actual functions are different, both institutions act as checks and balances for the government and, therefore, their roles are complementary.

Roles of Press and Judiciary

It is the responsibility of the media to bring forth news and facts that will shape public opinion and allow the citizens of a country to exercise their rights. The judiciary’s role is to protect those rights. Therefore, it becomes clear that in order to function efficiently, both the media and the judiciary must be independent of any outside influences that may attempt to skew information or legal decisions.

However, the roles of these two institutions do not end here. The judiciary is also responsible for protecting the freedom of the press. At the same time, the press is responsible for reporting facts and events in a manner that helps the judiciary make impartial legal decisions that can affect the course of a nation. While it is the media’s job to raise important issues and update the citizens of a country, it is the judiciary’s job to ensure that it can do so without interference.

The two systems also act as checks and balances for each other. The right to freedom of speech and expression isn’t absolute and it is up to the judiciary to decide when the press is being denied this right and when it cannot exercise this right. On the other hand, it is up to the media to ensure that the judiciary dispenses justice in a transparent and effective manner.

There are four pillars that support a working democracy – the executive, legislature, judiciary and press. Of these, the latter two are vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. Each must protect and reinforce the other in order for the power to remain in the hands of the people in a democracy.

Also Check: Speech on Freedom of Press

Essay on Freedom of Press in Democracy – Essay 2 (400 WORDS)

A democracy is a system wherein power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people. They may choose to exercise this power directly or to elect representatives from amongst their numbers. These representatives then form a governing body such as a parliament.

In order for a democracy to work, it needs to have four solid aspects – free and fair elections, protection of the people’s human rights, the participation of citizens and the rule of law applied equally to everyone. However, without the freedom of the press, all of this is moot.

Freedom of Press in Democracy

There can be no denying the fact that a democracy will only survive if there is freedom of the press or media. Since a democracy depends upon its citizens, these citizens must be well-informed so that they can make political decisions and elect their representatives appropriately. However, it is impossible or creates difficulty for every citizen to go searching for such information themselves.

This is where the press comes in. It falls upon the news media to collect, verify and disseminate the information that can help people make the decisions that allow a democracy to work. As such, the press becomes a powerful tool for the efficient functioning of a democratic government. By reporting verified facts, the press not only allows people to be knowledgeable about what is going on but also acts as a check on the government.

It becomes obvious, then, that the press must be free to do its job. It should not have to face censorship that hides crucial information from the public. The right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right of the press to the same freedom. If members of the press are intimidated and harassed or are discredited without reason, the people lose the only tool they have to participate effectively in the running of their country.

Without freedom of the press, no government can be considered ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’. Unfortunately, the past few years have seen increasing curbs, direct or indirect, on the media and its ability to report. These curbs have come in the form of harassment, threats and intimidation and are having increasingly disastrous consequences for the dissemination of unbiased information. Unless this trend is reversed, we may see some of the most powerful democracies in the world collapsing soon.

Essay on Importance of Freedom of Press and Media – Essay 3 (450 words)

It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The institution that maintains that vigil is the press or the media. In other words, if the people are to be free, it is the job of the media to ensure that it keeps a watch on those in power in whose hands the freedom lies. In order to do so, press that is free of any outside influences or influencers is absolutely vital.

Importance of Freedom of Press

The press has a responsibility to act as check and balance for the administration and the government. It is the press that raises its voice against social ills, malpractices, corruption and oppression. It is also the press that gathers, verifies and distributes events, facts and information that allow the people of a country to make sound judgments.

However, none of this is possible if the press itself is silenced or if its voice is only allowed when those in power permit. The information that comes from the press at such a time becomes suspect. Worse yet, the press may not be allowed to report news or express opinions that run contrary to what the people in power want. This means a citizenry that is woefully uninformed and, therefore, powerless.

This is not mere speculation. Time and time again, recent history has proven that censorship of the press is one of the most common features of a dictatorship. The censorship may not even be direct or obvious at first. A government may often start by discrediting the news media and what is being reported. It may stridently reinforce the notion that the media cannot be trusted by undermining the news and facts that media presents to the public.

This is when the media begins to exercise self-censorship to avoid outrage manufactured by the government. As time passes, this self-censorship may become more ingrained or such distrust for the news media may develop among the people that they call for the government to intervene. Of course, once the media is muzzled, there is no one to report truths. In the absence of those truths, the citizenry has no power to affect the necessary changes and the government reigns supreme.

No right is absolute. This is true even for the right to freedom of speech or expression. However, the right does exist and as long as it does, the power lies in the hands of the people. Since the freedom of the press also falls under this right, it is clear that the press is the tool that indirectly protects all other rights that a people may enjoy. Curbing the freedom of the press is, thus, curbing the freedom of the people.

Essay on Freedom of Press and Social Responsibility – Essay 4 (500 words)

Social responsibility is the obligation to guide one’s actions on the basis of the effect the actions will have on society, economy, culture and environment. What this means is that everyone has a responsibility to express themselves in a way that doesn’t harm the social, economic, cultural and environmental aspects of the world we live in.

Social Responsibility and Freedom of the Press

The press has a powerful role to play in any setting. It disseminates information and expresses opinions that guide and shape the public’s opinion and stances. Nowhere can this be seen better than in the reporting done in the 20 th and 21 st centuries across the globe. This is the time that reporting of facts became widespread and print media came into its own.

The theory of social responsibility of the press lies between total authoritarianism and libertarianism. As per the theory, a free press should be allowed without any censorship but the content should be self-regulated and open to discussion in public panels. It helps establish guidelines for professionalism in reporting and insists upon high standards of quality in terms of truth, accuracy and information.

The fact is that media without any fetters can be dangerous. It can report anything, twist any facts or even present outright lies in order to maintain its influence. It can be manipulated quite easily and, in turn, can manipulate the very public opinion it is supposed to shape. Responsible journalism doesn’t only mean reporting facts. It also means placing those facts in context and, under certain circumstances, even refraining from reporting facts or expressing opinions that can cause harm.

Specific Example

The perfect example of this situation is the Mumbai attacks on November 26. When the Rapid Action Force, Marine Commandos and National Security Guard surrounded the Taj Hotel and the Oberoi Trident, 67 channels were on hand to broadcast live the proceedings. Thanks to minute-by-minute updates, the terrorists knew exactly what was going on outside and were able to plan their defence accordingly. The job of the commandos became infinitely more difficult as they tried to subdue the terrorists and rescue hostages.

After the event, the Supreme Court ruled that the media had been extremely irresponsible and endangered the lives of not only the rescue teams but also the hostages. In their bid to increase their ratings, various TV channels cast aside all common sense and carelessly and ceaselessly released updates that helped the terrorists while hindering security forces. While freedom of expression is a right, it isn’t without its limitations and during those fateful days, the news media flagrantly violated those limitations for revenue.

There can be no doubt that a strong and free press is crucial to the functioning of any democracy. However, like any other right, the right to freedom of expression must be exercised with caution lest it does more harm than good. Unfortunately, news media depends on ratings to generate revenue and has demonstrated time and again that it will cross many moral lines to get both. In order to be truly effective, the press needs to remember that it has a responsibility to its audience and to society as a whole to be rational and conscientious in its reporting.

Essay on Freedom of the Press/Media in India – Essay 5 (650 words)

The belief that expressions and communiqués through various media such as print, television and the internet are a right to be exercised freely without government intervention is known as freedom of the press and media. This freedom is considered one of the cornerstones of democracy. In order to keep checks and balances on the government and its activities, the public must be adequately informed. This information is supposed to be dispensed by the press.

History of the Press in India

The Indian press is deeply rooted in Indian history and had its beginnings under the aegis of the British Raj. During the Indian struggle for freedom, various acts were enacted by the British government to censor press coverage of parties such as the Congress which were in the forefront of the independence movement. These acts included the Indian Press Act (1910), Indian Press (Emergency) Act (1931-32) and the Defence of India Act during the Second World War (1939-1945).

Freedom of the Press/Media in India

With the advent of independence, Indian leaders laid out the Constitution of India which guaranteed certain rights to all its citizens as part of being a democracy. While there is no specific Act in the constitution regarding the freedom of the press, Article 19 (1) a guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. The freedom of the press is deemed to be part of this right. Ideally, this means that the communiqués and expressions in various media cannot be censored by the government.

However, there are limitations to this freedom – limitations that apply to both private citizens and member of the press. The limitations are listed in Article 19 (2) and restrict freedom of speech and expression if said freedom interferes with the following:

• Security of the State
• Sovereignty and Integrity of India
• Public Order
• Friendly Relations with Foreign States
• Contempt of Court
• Decency or Morality

The offence of sedition as laid out in Article 124A is also something that can be used to curb the freedom of the media. The article states ‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which a fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.’

However, this isn’t absolute as laid out in Explanation 3 which states ‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.’

Current Position

Although India is considered the largest democracy in the world, the freedom of the press is declining in the country. As per the World Press Freedom Index of 2018, India holds a position of 138 out of 180. This has slipped down two points from 136 in 2017. The highest position the country achieved was in 2002 when it was ranked at 80. Since then there has been an alarming decline. Reporter without Borders, the organization that releases the index, cites growing intolerance and the murders of journalists as the reasons behind this decline.

As the world’s largest democracy, India has a duty to ensure that the press has the right to disseminate information and express opinions without excessive censorship. Unfortunately, in recent years, this right has been increasingly curbed. This oppression of the press is an alarming trend as it does not allow for proper checks and balances on the government and its activities. The Indian people need to remember that in order to have a strong democracy they need a strong and free press.

Related Information:

• Essay on India
• Essay on Democracy in India
• Essay on Fundamental Rights
• Essay on Freedom of Speech
• Essay on Nationalism
• Essay on Newspaper
• Slogans on Newspaper
• Speech on Newspaper
• Essay on Social Media

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Please select class

Home / Essay Samples / Sociology / Media / Press Freedom: Why It Matters for Democracy and Society

Press Freedom: Why It Matters for Democracy and Society

• Category: Social Issues , Sociology
• Topic: Freedom of Expression , Media , News

Pages: 5 (2296 words)

• Downloads: -->

Introduction

Repercussions of media trial, constitutionality or unconstitutionality of media trial, a necessary evil.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Media Analysis Essays

Speak Essays

Conflict Resolution Essays

Communication Skills Essays

Socialization Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->