2:21 PM PST 1\/9\/2017
by
Gary Baum
The most explicit call to action in Meryl Streep\u2019s memorable, now-viral speech about Hollywood, media and President-elect Donald J. Trump at the Golden Globes on Jan. 8 was her plea to join in support of The Committee to Protect Journalists.
The 35-year-old, New York-based nonprofit primarily defends reporters at risk of imprisonment or death for their work in repressive countries and conflict zones. But lately it\u2019s raised concerns about press freedom in the United States.
The Hollywood Reporter talked to CPJ head Joel Simon the morning after Streep spoke.
Did you know Streep was going to mention the CPJ?
We had no idea.
What\u2019s the response been so far?
Amazing \u2013 we got 500 new donations overnight and a couple hundred more during the day. They continue to come in and it\u2019s mostly average people based on the size of the donation, so that\u2019s really encouraging. Obviously, separately, it\u2019s just enormous visibility and resonance about what\u2019s at stake here. The thing about Meryl Streep is that we\u2019re used to journalists championing this issue. She said the press needs to go out there and do what it needs to do and needs to be defended by all of us.
This was the first time most people had heard of the organization \u2013 it\u2019s not a household name.
We\u2019re primarily a front-line organization, protecting journalists who are doing this day-to-day work that\u2019s incredibly dangerous and difficult. When we were founded, the U. S. media was really strong and there was a sense that we needed to look outward from our privilege and help others. And now that gap has narrowed and we are facing a press freedom challenge at home. While we of course recognize the challenges are different \u2013 it\u2019s not Syria \u2013 the U. S. has been in a position of global leadership, the example we set for the press in this country has resonated all over the world, and so we expect to be very engaged during the Trump administration.
The CPJ harshly criticized the Obama administration over its own leak investigations and use of surveillance.
I think it\u2019s laid a legal framework, and a kind of rationale, that\u2019s very threatening in terms of what might come. When Trump tweeted out his displeasure that some of the information from the [Russian hacking] intelligence briefing leaked before he got it, that was a very menacing message. But that\u2019s also a message the Obama administration sent pretty frequently in its own way. What\u2019s fundamentally different is the overt hostility with Trump, the attacks on individual reporters, the threats to weaken libel laws. There\u2019s a heightened rhetoric that is different.
How has the rise of social media weakened accountability reporting?
I think what keeps the press safe, what allows it to challenge powerful forces, is its utility. The press serves a vital role in terms of its ability to reach a mass audience with information that these powerful forces want to disseminate. But what\u2019s happened is that technology has created a disintermediation, where if you\u2019re ISIS you don\u2019t need to talk to journalists, and you also can kill journalists. And if you\u2019re a powerful politician, you previously needed to grapple with journalists, and now you can use your Twitter feed to do an end-run and disparage them and mock them. So essentially the media has less power.
What has the CPJ seen elsewhere that causes it to sound its alarm domestically now?
One of the things we\u2019ve seen, without a direct analogy, is that if you look at the way autocratic leaders consolidate power, they challenge media as corrupt or that it doesn\u2019t represent the views of the people. You see that rhetoric in Russia and Venezuela and Turkey. It\u2019s not even ideological. If you can reduce the influence of the press, then if the public encounters reporting that might be threatening to you, and the general confidence in information is already low, it\u2019s already much easier to dismiss it.
What\u2019s the biggest open question of the Trump administration pertaining to the press?
Trump does not like to be criticized in the media. The media will criticize him and expose him in ways he doesn\u2019t like. He\u2019ll be angry, no question. Will it just be angry rants and tweets, or will it be translated into policies that are detrimental to how the media functions? We\u2019ll see.
Will White House correspondents exist at the front lines of this dynamic?
The White House press corps has a role, but there was a time when it was more significant. The symbolism of the spokesperson for the administration submitting to harsh, hostile questions \u2013 difficult, probing questions from the media \u2013 is almost the most important thing itself. That\u2019s a visible manifestation of that accountability role.
The White House Correspondents\u2019 Association dinner has taken on an outsized, polarizing cultural role in Washington in the past couple of decades. Reporters hobnob with officials and Obama roasted Trump, seated nearby, in 2011. Will the party change?
That event does the media no favors. I would not be sad to see its demise.
To learn more about supporting the Committee to Protect Journalists, click here .<\/p>\n

\n

\nSimilarity rank: 10\n<\/div>\n

Sentiment rank: 1.8<\/div>\n

\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n