Freedom from the Press
October 27, 2006
Many of us consider “the freedom of the press” a sort of heralded battle cry of the West. We pride ourselves—frequently with merit, and sometimes without—on hard-hitting candor, suspension of bias, and a handful of other press-related clichés; though these ideals are often wanting and never fully realized, it is right that we should esteem them. But in the midst of so many Washington scandals, Whitehouse leaks, and weak media attempts to restore credibility, we may have forgotten the full meaning of these words. It is in a strange world of media and government relations, over which the archetypical Fox News now presides, that students at Tufts must operate. The community may be surprised, however, at just how relevant these issues are at home.
Between 2001 and 2002, the Committee on Student Life heard 18 cases involving accusations against the Primary Source. The CSL, the highest judicial authority at Tufts, overturned each of the accusations, which included charges of libel, discrimination, and harassment. Given both college students’ propensity for umbrage and the care with which Tufts publications, the Primary Source included, choose their words and articles, the results of these cases are unsurprising. What is surprising, however, is the level of involvement that Source members had in administering the proceedings, and the level of involvement it and other media outlets continue to have in student government today.
As this week’s “Conservatives on Campus” article notes, the CSL does not reveal its voting records and prohibits its members from disclosure. It is impossible, therefore, to determine the full implications that Source staff, including former editor-in-chief and CSL student chair Sam Dangremond, had in any of the cases, including those pertaining to the Source itself, and the Observer does not wish to make accusations. Their presence, however, is somewhat disturbing. As Professor Grossman, current faculty chair of the CSL, noted, “people can’t separate themselves from their core beliefs.” While she maintains the CSL can and does monitor itself, any good reporter would remain skeptical.
The CSL-Source link highlights not only a conflict of interest but also an issue at the heart of the credibility of student publications and the legitimacy of student government. It is through mutual respect of each other’s autonomy that the two great powers of public opinion—the government and the media—have coexisted in this country for so long and, though there have been periodic clashes, have avoided mutual destruction. This surprising breach of autonomy at Tufts is therefore alarming. If government officials can administer news, or if journalists can write legislation, what freedom can the press really have?
It is the opinion of the Observer that the Tufts community must consider these issues fully and discuss them with the same candor and zeal with which it discusses all of its problems. A simple rewording of the CSL bylaws—one that would include mandatory abstentions in cases of conflicting interests—is an obvious first step. However, the community should be wary of the overlap of participation in student journalism and government. Journalists and legislators wield great power in this country, and their influence at Tufts is similar. While the Tufts community holds itself to the highest standards of integrity and social responsibility, it is both naïve and unreasonable to expect the community to wholly avoid the types of problems so prevalent in Washington. The situation necessitates careful observation of the interplay between government and journalism and more swift responses to suspicious activity in the future.