By Becky Tallent | FāVS News Columnist
The views expressed in this opinion column are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of FāVS News.
It used to be if the press didn’t tell you, who would?
But today with social media, podcasts and other outlets, some people prefer to get their information elsewhere. Often, that information is not vetted for accuracy or even truth. That is why journalism is still important.
It is also why the FBI’s search of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home on Jan. 14 is so disturbing. It basically says if the administration does not like what a reporter writes, their homes can be searched and their devices and notes can be taken to stop the story.
It sends a chilling message to all journalists; it is a direct threat to a reporter’s ability to do their job. This includes reporters for smaller publications and services — like FāVS News — as well as national reporters.
Some background: A journalist’s job is not to be a cheerleader for any administration. Journalists are the “fourth estate,” a group dedicated to holding those in power accountable to the people. If denied the ability to report facts, there is no news, only propaganda.
For those not familiar with the Natanson situation: She is a Washington Post reporter who has most recently been covering Venezuela. Attorney General Pam Bondi sought the search warrant because of President Donald Trump’s frustration with leaks. The warrant called for a search for classified material, and it allowed the government agents to take her two computers, phone and Garmin watch.
The action crossed a well-established line. Until this incident, a search warrant had never been issued against a reporter in a case of government leaks. The courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of reporters to gather information and write stories about such leaks.
Washington Post editor Matt Mury told his newsroom that although the raid allegedly did not target Nathanson or the Post, “this extraordinary, aggressive action is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work.”
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said the actions are, “an alarming escalation in the Trump administration’s multipronged war on press freedom.”
The Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press has asked a federal judge to unseal the application to search Nathanson’s home. The Reporter’s Committee lawyers argued in their filing the public has “to understand the government’s basis for seeking (and a federal court’s basis for approving) a search with dramatic implications for a free press and the constitutional rights of journalists.”
Many journalism groups are calling the actions outrageous and deeply troubling, and they are strongly condemning the execution of the warrant. In their statement, the Society of Professional Journalists said Congress and the courts have already spoken on the issue in favor of journalists.
“The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 passed by Congress in the wake of earlier abuses, was designed to sharply limit searches of journalists’ homes or seizure of their work product, permitting them only under narrowly defined and extortionary circumstances.” The SPJ statement reads. “The law exists to protect the public’s right to know — not to shield the government from embarrassment or scrutiny.
“The search of a reporter’s home, the seizure of her communications devices and the implicit message sent to her sources directly undermine the intent of that law,” SPJ continues.
As Marty Baron, former Washington Post executive editor, said: “It’s a clear and appalling sign that this administration will set no limits on its acts of aggression against an independent press.”
The search and seizure of one reporter’s notes and electronics is unusual, aggressive and highly intrusive by the administration. Not even Richard Nixon in the heat of the Watergate scandal made such a move.
Why should news consumers be concerned? Without the right to report fairly, accurately and with all the available facts, there is no news.
Without honest journalism, news consumers are denied the right to decide for themselves what they believe or not about a situation or event because they do not have verifiable facts. It impacts their lives in terms of everything from buying groceries to deciding for whom they will vote in an election.
The Jan. 14 event is an ethical issue for this administration. By supporting the free press, it reaffirms the Constitution, but discouraging the media eliminates both transparency and trust.
FāVS News uses professional journalists and thoughtful commentary to explore faith, values and ethics. Support journalism like this by making a tax-
