.png)
The Free Press: A Legal History for Independent Voters
- Apr 4
- 11 min read
Updated: Apr 9
“Nero piqued himself on his fine voice and skill in music; no doubt a laudable ambition! He performed in public, and carried the prize of excellence; it was afterwards resolved by all the judges as good law, that whosoever would insinuate the least doubt of Nero's preeminence in the noble art of fiddling, ought to be deemed a traitor to the state.”
Benjamin Franklin, On the Freedom of the Press, 1737
The Founding Fathers carefully studied the fall of republics like Rome to understand the causes of their collapse. Benjamin Franklin recognized a common issue: limitations on free speech and the press, warning that, "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away… tyranny is erected on its ruins."
In his 1737 letter "On the Freedom of the Press," Franklin acknowledged that free speech could be misused, for defamation, slander, or lies. But the real danger, he argued, comes from censorship, which leads to a rapid abuse of power: "Under pretense of pruning off the exuberant branches, he would be apt to destroy the tree" itself.
To prove his point, Franklin cited numerous examples spanning centuries and continents; such as Augustus Caesar's use of libel laws to silence dissent, where "no man could write or open his mouth without being in danger of forfeiting his head," and Henry VIII's reign, whose regime labeled even innocuous remarks as treasonous. His historical examples weren’t just dramatic. They were cautionary tales.
The Founding Fathers' deep understanding of history led them to enshrine freedom of the press in The First Amendment. A Free Press clause was seen by our Founding Fathers not as a mere privilege, but as a vital safeguard against tyranny.
Today, while certain limits remain—primarily around national security, privacy, and defamation, America remains strongly committed to a free press as an enduring principle and a crucial safeguard for democracy.
A Double-Edged Sword:
The Free Press and Political Scrutiny
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press,
and that cannot be limited without being lost."
Thomas Jefferson was initially a strong advocate for a free press, and famously declared, "The only security of all is in a free press." He even wrote in 1787:
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Jefferson loved the idea of a free press — until the press turned on him. In 1802, journalist James T. Callender exposed Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemings, an enslaved woman living at Monticello with Jefferson. Harry Croswell reprinted these accusations in his newspaper “The Wasp” and was found guilty of “being a malicious and seditious man.”under New York libel law. In 1804, Croswell appealed his case to the New York Supreme Court, where Alexander Hamilton argued that the truth should be a defense against libel.
The case ultimately reshaped U.S libel laws and helped define freedom of the press. But it also changed Jefferson. Once a press champion, Jefferson now lamented, "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; since he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
As President, his anger towards newspapers grew.
"My skepticism as to everything I see in a newspaper makes me indifferent whether I ever see one.”
Jefferson’s experience shows that even the biggest champions of a free press can struggle to stick to their principles when they’re the ones placed under public scrutiny.
Since the beginning, the First Amendment's promise of a free press has been tested. During the colonial era, newspapers served as outlets to spread British propaganda. But as tensions with Britain escalated, these papers shifted towards sensationalism and partisan rhetoric, a reality Jefferson observed that:
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” He recognized with market forces at play, a newspaper “restraining it to true facts & sound principles only would find few subscribers.”
Navigating the News Maze Today
"The people who watch Fox are not going to watch CNN. You know, let's be honest."
- Fareed Zakaria, CNN
Today, Americans navigate a news landscape saturated with bias, misinformation, and sensationalism, making it harder to stay informed. Daily news consumption has dropped from 51% in 2016 to just 38% in 2022. The constant flow of information — especially during political upheavals and the COVID-19 pandemic — has led many to tune out for their mental health.
Many Americans feel overwhelmed and disconnected from the news. Partisan narratives push people into echo chambers or away from the news entirely, even at the risk of being uninformed. Beyond trust issues many see the news as depressing, irrelevant, or too complex, leaving them wondering, "why bother?" Even dedicated news consumers struggle to sift through the 24/7 barrage of information. This "perfect storm" has led to widespread disengagement.
Independent voters like you face an even greater challenge. Without strong partisan allegiances, you are constantly bombarded with conflicting viewpoints. In a media landscape where every source seems to have an agenda, it is hard to distinguish facts from bias. To counter this, independent voters must become discerning news consumers who critically evaluate sources and avoid echo chambers. At The News Together, we empower our listeners with the tools and resources to do just that.
Read All About It: While you can
"The only security of all is in a free press."
-President Thomas Jefferson
The State Of Local News 2024 Report published by Northwestern Medill Journalism school paints a grim picture.
“Since 2005, more than 3,200 print newspapers have vanished. Newspapers continue to disappear at a rate of more than two per week; in the past year alone, 130 newspapers have shut their doors. In addition to these closures and mergers, papers are reducing their print coverage, including shifting from dailies to weeklies or ending print publishing altogether.”
Today, approximately 5,595 newspapers are still in operation with 80% published weekly, instead of daily. This is a significant decline compared to the 8,891 newspapers in 2005, and the 24,000 in the early 1900s.
In just under two decades, from 2005 to 2023, the newspaper industry has lost over 266,000 jobs — almost three out of every four positions. Newsrooms, where the reporters and editors work, have been hit especially hard, losing over 45,000 staff members, a 60% decline. With fewer than 100,000 people employed in the newspaper industry today, the speed of this decline is unprecedented.
The rise of local “News Deserts” — communities with little to no local news coverage, now affects 206 counties and nearly 55 million Americans. As Penny Abernathy, co-author of the Medill 2023 report, states,
“The significant loss of local news outlets in poorer and underserved communities poses a crisis for our democracy.”
Today, there are currently 7,945 local news media outlets in the United States. Newspapers make up the majority, with 5,595 outlets, followed by 742 network digital sites (affiliated with larger news organizations), 662 standalone digital sites (independent online news sites), 719 ethnic media outlets, and 227 public broadcasters working for free.
While large media conglomerates control much of the press, there is good news: In the last five years, 164 newspaper startups have launched, and the number of non-print news outlets remains steady at 2350. In the coming months, we will spotlight some excellent new local news outlets and the growing trend of non-profit and local government investment in the media landscape.
As local voices diminish, misinformation thrives — especially on social media, where credible information is often overshadowed by sensationalism. If we want to rebuild trust in journalism and keep our democracy strong, we must support local news.
With 81% of Americans believing our democracy is under threat, subscribing to a newspaper has never been more vital. Advertisers base their spending on subscriber numbers and with only 16% of Americans currently subscribed to news products, every new subscription helps keep local journalism alive. By supporting local news, you empower journalists to hold those in power accountable, keep communities informed, and take a stand for truth and civic engagement.
The Most Trusted Man In America
“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.”
Walter Cronkite, CBS News, 1965
Just a few decades ago, Americans gathered around their televisions every evening to get the news from trusted anchors, like Walter Cronkite. These broadcasts shaped a national narrative and fostered a sense of common understanding — even when opinions differed.
That era is long gone. Our shared experience has been fragmented by the rise of Cable news, social media, and the emergence of independent journalism and digital platforms catering to diverse perspectives. Today, no single outlet is commands the public's attention, and even the most trusted sources struggle to maintain credibility in this increasingly polarized climate. Most Americans view primary news sources as biased, either left- or right-leaning, making it harder to trust the news across party lines. A Gallup Poll found that American trust in the media has plummeted from 72% in 1976 to just 31% in 2024.
The media landscape is vastly different from 50 years ago when most Americans trusted the news. Public doubt in the media has been growing for decades, fueled by historical betrayals — such as the government's misinformation during the Vietnam War, which obscured the reality of the conflict, and the Watergate scandal, which exposed deep-seated corruption at the highest levels of government. More recently, false claims of weapons of mass destruction used to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan further eroded trust in the media. Today, the rise of "fake news," allegations often from political leaders challenging unfavorable reporting, has further undermined public confidence in the press.
Restoring the public's faith in the news requires transparency, accountability, and integrity in journalism. Louis Menand, an English professor and author, analyzed the history of when Americans lost faith in the news. He noted, "The power of the press, such as it is, is like the power of academic scholars, scientific researchers, and Supreme Court Justices. It is not backed by force; it rests on faith: the belief that these are groups of people dedicated to pursuing the truth without fear or favor. Once they disclaim that function, they will be perceived in the way everyone else is now perceived: as spinning for gain or status."
While America may never see someone as trusted as Walter Cronkite once was, we can still rebuild trust — one paper subscription at a time.
A Case For The News
“It was accountability that Nixon feared.”
Bob Woodward, The Washington Post, 1974
In a world where the truth is often suppressed, you, as an American, possess a rare and powerful tool: access to a free press. Only about 14% of the global population shares this privilege. This freedom empowers you to shape your own understanding of the world, free from government-controlled narratives. Unlike journalists in many other countries, ours don't risk their lives to deliver the truth– a freedom we must honor by staying informed.
While trust in media may waver, journalism’s core purpose remains vital. 74% of Americans recognize the press plays a crucial role in holding power accountable, a cornerstone of our democracy. And with 81% of Americans deeply concerned about the state of our democracy, history sends a clear warning: a free press isn't a luxury, it's a lifeline.
But the news isn't just about politics and power. It's about people and the stories that connect us. It’s about the triumphs that inspire us, and the struggles that call for our empathy. Engaging with the news means you become part of the human experience, witnessing the events shaping our communities and our world.
And let's be honest, it's also about the everyday moments: knowing who won the baseball game last night, which suitcase is best for your next trip, how to keep your lawn greener than your neighbor's, and how to prepare for that sudden hailstorm.
Following the news makes you more than informed - it makes you interesting. You'll vote more wisely, raise smarter kids, eat healthier, exercise smarter, and you'll also become the most interesting person at the dinner table. You'll have the conversational tools to connect, communicate, and build stronger friendships and bonds with your co-workers.
Choosing to follow the news is an act of empowerment. It's choosing to be informed, engaged, and play an active role in shaping the future. In a time when misinformation thrives and endless noise competes for attention, your informed voice matters more than ever. Embrace this privilege, seek out credible sources, and let your engagement be a testament to the enduring power of a free press. Your democracy, your community, and your understanding of the world depend on it.
Testing the Limits: The Free Press in Court
“[T]he character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in
falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
-Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., 1919
While the free press has flourished in the United States, it has faced numerous challenges throughout history. At The News Together, we will explore the evolution of the free press, highlighting its growth, the challenges it has faced, and the ongoing threats it confronts today. We'll break down the landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped our understanding of the First Amendment, helping you learn the legal foundations that underpin the current media landscape.
Here’s an overview of some key cases for reference:
Schenck v. United States (1919): Established the "clear and present danger" test, allowing speech restrictions if it poses an immediate threat. For instance, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater (or, in this case, tell people to resist the draft when the country is at war).
Gitlow v. New York (1925): This was a landmark decision because it meant that states, as well as the federal government, were now bound to protect free speech through the 14th Amendment, significantly expanding individual rights. Up until this case it was believed that the 1st Amendment only applied to the Federal Government and not the States.
Near v. Minnesota (1931): This case confirmed that the government cannot censor newspapers before they print something, except in very rare cases (like during wartime or if national security is threatened). This protects newspapers from being shut down by the government just because they publish something the government doesn't like.
Bridges v. California (1941) & Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1941): Affirmed that newspapers and individuals have the right to comment on ongoing court cases, even if their comments are critical. This protects the right to discuss and debate legal issues in the news. This right is only limited if those comments directly and immediately stop a fair trial from happening by creating a “clear and present danger” to the fair administration of justice.
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952): Allowed the government to punish someone for speech that defamed entire groups. This case showed that, at that time, the Court was willing to allow some restrictions on speech, especially when it came to hate speech. It's important to note that this case is often seen as an outlier and is viewed differently now, especially in comparison to the later New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, which greatly strengthened protections for speech.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): This case established the "actual malice" standard for libel suits against public officials, ensuring robust protection for journalists holding power accountable. It's now much harder for public officials to win libel lawsuits. This protects the press from being sued just for making a mistake. It ensures that there can be robust debate about public figures and government actions. The court made it harder to sue so that journalist could do their jobs.
Dive deeper into the history and impact of a free press with The News Together. Join us. Subscribe. Listen. Engage.