Gregory Freeman: 'We' May Be Bad, But Don't Censor Us. P-D 9/9/1997

Headline: `WE' MAY BE BAD, BUT DON'T CENSOR US
Reporter: By Gregory Freeman

Publication: ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Last Printed: Tue., Sep. 9, 1997
Section: NEWS, Page: 1B, Edition: FIVE STAR LIFT

THE DEATH of Princess Diana has caused many to question the role of those of us in the media.
Are we more intrusive than we should be? Should laws be established to curtail our actions? Just how far should we be allowed to go? I shudder a bit to use the word "we" as I write about this. I don't consider myself, nor any of my colleagues at this newspaper, to be in the same category as the paparazzi.
Still, I realize that the public lumps us all together. Whether I like it or not, what I do is considered by many to fall into the same category as paparazzi, tabloids and programs like "American Journal."

In this country, celebrities are swiping at the news media, particularly the photographers who relentlessly pursue them, seemingly at all costs. Indeed, some photographers have been known to trip celebrities, to block their paths, to insult them - anything to get a reaction that will help them sell their pictures. They sell them, first to the tabloids and, often, to the mainstream media.
Like many, I'm revolted by the actions of the paparazzi. Let me make it clear: I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment. It's a fundamental freedom in this country. When you look at other countries that don't have this freedom, it makes you realize how important a freedom it really is.

But with freedom comes responsibility. Certainly those who choose to become public figures realize that they will lose some privacy for this privilege. They've got to accept the fact that they will attract media attention. The public wants to know more about them than, say, someone who lives down the street.
Still, those celebrities deserve a certain amount of privacy and respect. Photographers who peer from behind bushes and use telephoto lenses to capture even the most intimate moments of celebrities are the bottom dwellers of the profession. Is there any wonder the public often views the media with disdain?

So how does the public deal with this?
Tampering with the First Amendment would be the wrong idea. Although they never could have predicted what today's news media are like, the Founding Fathers clearly knew what they were doing by establishing the First Amendment as a safeguard against tyranny.
For those who want less government in their lives, putting restrictions on the media would be a step in the wrong direction.

So, in my view, is censorship. And I'm concerned that we're seeing efforts in that direction.
Various supermarkets and newsstands, here and across the country, have chosen to ban certain tabloids if those publications use photos that the businesses decide are inappropriate.
Locally, activists disturbed by the publication of a book that they say contains child pornography want a bookstore chain to stop selling the book.

I'd argue against the decisions both by the supermarkets and newsstands and by the activists disturbed by the book.
Why? Because those who police the sale of books or other publications - as well as those who police what goes on the airwaves - should be the public.
Should someone else decide what I can and cannot read? I'm an adult, and I have the right to choose for myself. I don't want someone - whether it's a board or some individuals - deciding that for me.

But the public has a great deal of power. Public sentiment can drive what we see and hear.
If the tabloids run tasteless photographs from the accident scene in France, the public can react by refusing to buy those newspapers. If bookstores carry books that most people consider pornographic or in poor taste, again the public will decide, choosing not to buy that book.
Already, some tabloids here and abroad are responding to public sentiment by announcing that they won't carry inappropriate photos from the accident.

The truth is, much of what we see, hear and read in the news media is market driven. Paparazzi chase celebrities because they know that the public will eat it up.
In short, if and when the public decides that it is tired of the paparazzi, that it is tired of "American Journal" tabloid journalism, we'll see less of it.

Want proof of that?
Look back at television three or four years ago. The airwaves were filled with talk shows that garnered ratings by presenting the sleaziest, most inarticulate, tackiest folks they could find. The numbers were up, but eventually the public decided it didn't want to see that kind of programming. While some shows still exist today, many of the offenders have fallen by the wayside.

I hope that a result of all that has happened in the last 10 days or so is a news media that are more responsible. But that responsibility has to be enforced by the public, not by the government.

Daniel Schesch - Webweaver

back