"For anyone who believes that the editorial pages of American newspapers have been insufficiently critical of President Donald Trump, the Boston Globe has a solution.
Determined not to keep readers guessing, the Globe is urging editorial boards across the country to publish simultaneous condemnations of Mr. Trump’s rhetorical attacks on the press in their Thursday editions.
On Friday the Associated Press reported:
‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ said Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor for the editorial page of The Boston Globe, referring to a characterization of journalists that Trump has used in the past. The president, who contends he has largely been covered unfairly by the press, also employs the term ‘‘fake news’’ often when describing the media.
Mr. Trump says that he is referring only to “fake news” purveyors—not all members of the press corps—as enemies. The AP report elaborated:
The Globe has reached out to editorial boards nationwide to write and publish editorials on Aug. 16 denouncing what the newspaper called a ‘‘dirty war against the free press.’’...
CNN said over the weekend that more than 100 newspapers have now agreed to participate. Organizing large coalitions of people to simultaneously express similar messages is generally the work of politicians and public relations executives, rather than journalists.
...one case where the Globe’s editorial board may not benefit from its separation from the news staff.
Reporters who have ventured out to talk to Republicans have likely discovered the common belief among such voters that media professionals are almost entirely lined up in opposition to Mr. Trump and tend to parrot each other’s attacks.
Therefore announcing that dozens or perhaps hundreds of ostensibly independent editorial pages will publish similar Trump critiques at the same time probably isn’t the best way to expand readership among the rightward half of the electorate.
...one case where the Globe’s editorial board may not benefit from its separation from the news staff.
Reporters who have ventured out to talk to Republicans have likely discovered the common belief among such voters that media professionals are almost entirely lined up in opposition to Mr. Trump and tend to parrot each other’s attacks.
Therefore announcing that dozens or perhaps hundreds of ostensibly independent editorial pages will publish similar Trump critiques at the same time probably isn’t the best way to expand readership among the rightward half of the electorate.
If the Globe’s effort is actually not intended to broaden its audience but instead to energize those who already oppose the President, this again may be a strategy more suited to politics than to journalism.
The AP has more on the point of all this:
Pritchard said she hoped the editorials would make an impression on Americans.
‘‘I hope it would educate readers to realize that an attack on the First Amendment is unacceptable,’’ she said. ‘‘We are a free and independent press, it is one of the most sacred principles enshrined in the Constitution.’’
The First Amendment does not say that the government cannot criticize the press.
Mr. Trump enjoys free speech just as his media adversaries do.
Mr. Trump enjoys free speech just as his media adversaries do.
Rather, the First Amendment prevents government from infringing on the rights of Americans to speak and publish.
And on that score, there’s a reasonable case that Mr. Trump’s predecessor presented a greater threat to press freedom, to say nothing of Mr. Trump’s 2016 opponent.
Mrs. Clinton wanted to restrict the ability of Americans to make a documentary about her.
We don’t recall editorial boards joining together to announce they were not with her..."
