A A

Greg Jayne, Opinion page editor

There is a scene in Revenge of the Sith an excellent movie, by the way, despite the scorn heaped upon the Star Wars prequels and despite the wooden acting of Hayden Christensen that seems somewhat relevant today.

Senator Padm Amidala is watching Chancellor Palpatine increase his power and seize control of the universe through the capitulation of the Galactic Senate. And as the chancellor is becoming The Emperor and the senators are cheering, Padm says, So this is how liberty dies with thunderous applause.

It was one of the most political moments in any of the Star Wars movies, and it has been co-opted by numerous pundits, politicians, and writers since it was first uttered in 2005. The thing about decrying the death of liberty is that it can be used to suit any number of purposes, and critics accused Barack Obama of destroying liberty nearly as often as the other side accused George W. Bush.

Therefore, we are reluctant to declare that one politician or another is going to mean the death of liberty; our political landscape has far too many Chicken Littles who are far too quick to declare that the sky is falling. This nation is too strong and our values are too secure to be shaken by a single person, regardless of how vehemently we might disagree with them.

But a move Friday by the Trump administration should concern all Americans and should lead to an examination of how willing we are to defend the liberty that forms the foundation of our nation. The White House, you see, was holding an off-camera news briefing and blocked CNN, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and BuzzFeed from attending.

You might think this is not a big deal, and perhaps you are correct. The off-camera briefing is known as a gaggle and is less formal than the daily question-and-answer session in the White House briefing room. You also might think that CNN or the New York Times deserved it because they have been trying to report facts about the Trump administration instead of alternative facts, whether or not the administration wants those facts to be known.

But, as New York Times editor Dean Baquet wrote: Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties. We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.

I have been in this business long enough to understand that much of the public really doesnt care about the difficulties faced by the media; journalists typically stand somewhere near members of Congress in terms of respect. Yet, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, 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. And unlike most Jefferson quotes you find on the internet, that one is accurate.

Without the media, we never would have known about the Constitution-trampling excess of the Nixon administration. Or the Catholic Churchs cover-up of sexual abuse by priests. Or a former Oregon governors sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old while he was mayor of Portland. Without the media, public officials would be able to act free of the disinfectant that is sunshine.

Because of that, the public needs the media more than the Trump administration does. The presidents constant harangues against the press are not the actions of a well-adjusted adult, nor are they the actions of somebody who is willing to endure scrutiny or is confident in his ability to lead.

I dont think President Trump is akin to Emperor Palpatine; I dont believe he can shoot lightning out of his fingers. I also dont think Trump is going to single-handedly destroy liberty. No, that will only happen if his attempts to limit the press are met with thunderous applause.

Link:

Jayne: We can't allow liberty to die with thunderous applause - The Columbian