The Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal have written an open letter to the Chinese government urging it to reverse its "damaging and reckless" decision to expel their reporters amid a spiraling COVID epidemic.
The letter makes all the usual points about a "free flow of reliable news and information" in the middle of a growing international emergency. And however clichéd, such sentiments are correct since access to the broadest possible sources of information is indeed essential if the world is to make it through the crisis.
But the letter would have been a lot more convincing if the three papers had spoken up on Mar. 2 when the Trump administration moved to expel sixty Chinese journalists working for five news organizations that the White House regards as little more than state propaganda outfits.
Moreover, they'd be on even firmer footing if they had not actively cheered on the most dangerous anti-media effort of all, the U.S. crackdown on the TV news service RT, formerly known as Russia Today, that began in November 2017.
The crackdown on RT was in some ways even worse than McCarthyism since the latter was at least about something real and important, which is to say a Communist movement that controlled roughly forty percent of the global population and was pressing in on capitalism from every side. If the ruling class seemed spooked, it was facing a challenge of unprecedented dimensions.
But the threat this time around was about something entirely made up, i.e. the belief that Russia had supposedly used various dark arts to trick Americans into voting for Trump. The nonsense began in January 2017 when the CIA, NSA, and FBI "assessed" that Vladimir Putin had interfered in the previous year's election in order "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability" and, in the process, boost Trump. The report was entirely devoid of evidence, yet the press took it as gospel. Even worse, the intelligence report included a seven-page annex accusing RT of engaging in "criticism of U.S. and Western governments as well as the promotion of radical discontent," running "numerous reports on alleged U.S. election fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities," contending that U.S. election results cannot be trusted and do not reflect the popular will," and hosting third-party candidates who contend that "the U.S. two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham.'"
Imagine - a foreign news service daring to suggest that U.S. politics were flawed! If papers like the Times or Post had the slightest inkling of self-respect, they would have laughed themselves silly over such hyper-sensitivity and told the CIA to grow a thicker skin. But they didn't. Instead, they worked themselves up into ever greater levels of indignation. Within a few months, the New York Times was warning that "if there is any unifying character to RT, it is a deep skepticism of Western and American narratives of the world and a fundamental defensiveness about Russia and Mr. Putin" and that, thanks to snazzy graphics and snappy repartee, the network had put together "the most effective propaganda operation of the 21st century so far, one that thrives in the feverish political climates that have descended on many Western publics."
Of course, one might observe that outlets like CNN and MSNBC are characterized by a deep skepticism of Russian narratives, so what's the difference? But that wouldn't be fair since everyone knows that America is right and Russia wrong and that any comparison between the two is automatically invalid, isn't it?
Not to be outdone, the Washington Post - official slogan: "Democracy dies in darkness" - ran not one but two op-eds (here and here) calling on the federal government to require RT to register as a foreign agent, a step the Trump administration would dutifully take just two months later.
So the big two turned out to be more aggressive than the Trump administration in reducing journalistic diversity and using the power of the state to undermine a foreign competitor. Finally, just a month ago, the Times ran a front-page article declaring - queue the ominous music - that Radio Sputnik, RT's sister outlet, had begun "broadcasting on three Kansas City-area radio stations during prime drive time." Horror of horrors, the station was bombarding Missourians with Russki propaganda criticizing impeachment, the media, and the U.S. political system in general and informing that, in the words of one Sputnik host, that "the masses of poor and working people don't have access to even the most essential things."
Where did Radio Sputnik come up with such a notion? Doesn't everyone know that perfect equality reigns in the United States and that anyone who says otherwise must be working for a foreign power?
In fact, while America never tires of touting its devotion to the First Amendment, it loses control when a foreign news service turns tables by engaging in journalism that is cheeky and irreverent. It wants a free press, which is to say one that is free to repeat over and over again how perfectly wonderful America really is. But it does not believe in a free press that allows foreigners to say the contrary.
[Some colour fonts and bolding added.].
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.