Danger to a Free Press; J. C. Merrill

52 THE FREEMAN June lem and can only be solved by so cial action. It is to-day the most important of all social problems, because its complete solution would accomplish nothing less than· the ,abolition of poverty and want from society."19 19 Ibid., p. 571. The "new reality," then, was the metaphysic-like foundation for social reform. It was, to speak metaphorically, the space station built by intellectuals on their flight from reality from which to launch their reformist experi ments upon the earth. ~ The next article in this series will treat of "The New Creativity." DANGER to a Free Press JOHN C. MERRILL ALTHOUGH isolated journalists, statesmen, and academicians had long toyed with the term "respon sibility" as well as "freedom" for the mass media, it was not until 1947 when the Commission on Freedom of the Press (headed by Robert Hutchins) brought out its A Free and Responsible Press that the concept gained much of an ideological foothold in the United States. Earlier, it had somehow been assumed that reDr. Merrill, Associate Professor of Journalism at the University of Missouri, offers, among others, a graduate course on "Basic Issues in the News."

sponsibility was automatically built into a libertarian press; that a "free press" in the Western sense was responsible per se to its society. But the Hutchins group thought differently. Noting what they called a clear danger in growing restriction of communications outlets and general irresponsibil ity in many areas of the press, the group offered this ominous warning: "If they (the agencies of mass communication) are ir responsible, not even the First Amendment will protect their 1965 DANGER TO A FREE PRESS 53 freedom from governmental con trol. The amendment will be amended." Since 1947 there has been grow ing discourse about the: respon sibility of the press and less and less about its freedom to react in dependently in a democratic so ciety. Undoubtedly many would. be "definers" of responsible jour nalism are among us who are ready and willing to turn our press in a new direction: toward "consen sus" journalism hewing to some predetermined line which the "re sponsibility" proponents see as progress.

What Is IISocial Responsibilityll? At first it would seem rather strange that modern liberals are in the forefront of the "social re sponsibility" advocates and thus opposed to our traditional plura listic press philosophy. However, when one thinks of their skepti cism as to the value of the individ ual, it is not too difficult to see them projecting this rationale to the press. Just as "liberals" are opposed to "laissez faire" econ omics, they are also opposed to "laissez faire" journalism. Inevit ably, if they have their way, the American press can expect a great amount of control in the name of "responsible journalism" and a minimum of individual· publisher freedom. The social responsibility "theory" implies a recognition by the media that they must perform a public service to warrant their existence. Facts must be reported accurately and in a meaningful context. Responsibility, instead of freedom, must be the watchword.

Such thinking leads to the advo cacy of a regulatory system de signed to keep the press "socially responsible." This so-called theory of social responsibility, seriously embraced in "liberal" circles, has a good ring to it and, like "love" and "motherhood," has an undeniable attraction for many. There is a trend throughout the world in this direction, which implies a suspi cion of, and dissatisfaction with, the libertarianism of Milton, Locke, and even Jefferson. Implicit in this trend toward "social re sponsibility" is the argument that some group (obviously a govern mental one, ultimately) can and must define or decide just what is socially responsible. Also, the implication is clear that publish ers and journalists acting freely cannot determine what is socially responsible nearly as well as can some "outside" or "impartial" group. If this power elite decides that the press (or portions of it) is not responsible, not even the First Amendment will keep pub lishers from losing their freedom.

54 THE FREEMAN June This would appear to many as a suggestion of increased power ac cumulation at the national level, a further restriction of a plura listic society. Government Supervision Few would deny that the press, in one respect, would be more "re sponsible" if some type of gov ernmen tal supervision came about; indeed, reporters could be kept from nosing about in "criti cal" areas during "critical" times. The amount of sensational ma terial could be controlled in the press, or eliminated altogether. Government activities could al ways be supported and public pol icy could be pushed regularly. The press could be more "educational" in the sense that less hard news (crime, wrecks, disasters, and the like) would appear, while more news of art exhibits, concerts, speeches by government person ages, and national progress in general could be emphasized. In short, the' press .would stress the positive and eliminate, or minim ize, the negative. Then, with one voice, the press of the nation would be responsible to its so ciety; and the definition of "re sponsible" would be functional defined and carried out by the gov ernment.

Some persons may object to this line of analysis, saying that to guarantee "social responsibility" of the press does not necessarily imply government control. It is not difficult, however, to project control ultimately to government, since if left to be defined by vari ous publishers or journalistic groups the term "social respon sibility" is relative and nebulous. It is obvious that in the tradi tional context of American liber tarianism no "solution" that would be widely agreed upon or enforced could ever be reached by nongov ernment groups or individuals. Social responsibility proponents insist that government would in tervene "only when the need is great and the' stakes are high." They assure us that the govern ment should not be heavy-handed. The question arises, however, as to just when is the need great enough and the stakes high enough for government to inter vene. And just how much inter vention by government is enough to be "heavy-handed"?

IISocial Responsibilityll Implies Pluralistic Communication The American press has been proceeding on unregulated initia tive up until now. But its "lib eral" critics do not think that a pluralistic information system is good enough. Under the diversi fied system we now have - includ ing much nonconformist journal1965 DANGER TO A FREE PRESS 55 ism - the citizen does get infor mation and a we'alth of it. Admit tedly, there are gaps in it, but anyone vaguely familiar with in formation theory and semantics knows that there will always be gaps, and if different reporters observe and communicate it, there will always he variant versions. It is certa.inly not contended here that all information coming to the public from all mass media is reliable, honest, complete, fair, and "socially' responsible" (what ever that means). Nobody really knows just how much of it is - or if any of it is. Since, in a nation such as the United States, there is .no ready definition for "social responsibility," there is really no standard to which our media seek to conform - even though, with out a doubt, they would all con ceive of themselves as "socially responsible.' , Their very pluralism - their very diversity - is the base of their nebulous idea that in our society they are responsible. Responsibility to our society implies a continuance of this very pluralis tic communication, with all of its virtues and evils, and a constant guard against any encroachments by any group on any level to "de fine" what is "responsible," there by further aligning the press to its definition.

This "press pluralism" concept seems much sounder· and certain ly more meaningful, than "social responsibility." All press systems can claim to be responsible to their societies, but the ide'a of a pIuralistic media system inj ecting a variety of opinions and ideas in to the social fabric is one which only the libertarian system can reasonably claim. The U.S. press should fight all attempts to cast all of its units in the same mold; the right of, or at least the possibility for, some press units to deviate from others must persist. If that be irresponsibility, we had better be content to continue living with it. ~ ,/! ,./;;.... ''', ii,····,· )Ii More LesSO~~i ,~ of Lost Weekends MELVIN D. BARGER IN MY FIRST FREEMANarticle, "The Lessons of Lost Weekends" (March, 1961), I related my ex periences as a recovered alcoholic to many of the social and economic conditions of the world. For ex ample, I noted that the tippler's mistake is not unlike the error of those who see no harm in gradual doses of monetary inflation. The alcoholic's drinking starts with "taking only a few." He has no intention of letting it get out of hand, and he is more surprised than anybody when it does. In somewhat the same way, inflation begins rather innocently, but soon "hooks" its victims before they're aware of their danger. The same analogy was extended to other practices, such as deficit spending, foreign aid, and monetary controls.