upworthy

first amendment

Democracy

Trevor Noah implores U.S. journalists to ask themselves this one vital question

"Ask yourself that question every day, because you have one of the most important roles in the world."

Trevor Noah received high praise for his closing remarks at the 2022 White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Back in 2022, for the first time in six years, the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner (WHCD) was held with the president of the United States in attendance in Washington, D.C. The WHCD has been a tradition in Washington for more than a century and for the past several decades it has taken the form of a comedic roast of both the government and the press. The dinner on April 30, 2022 was hosted by comedian and former host of "The Daily Show" Trevor Noah, who's known for his smart, witty commentary on social and political issues.

The "let's invite a comedian to publicly and viciously make fun of us for a couple of hours" idea may be a bit odd, but these events have proven quite popular over the years, with many viral moments (including President Obama's infamous GIF-worthy mic drop) coming from them. The dinner opened with Noah joking about it being a superspreader event, earning some uncomfortable laughter as the COVID-19 pandemic was still fresh, and then the individual roasts commenced. Noah didn't hold back slamming people across the political and media spectrum—all in good fun, of course—including President Biden himself.

But it was Noah's closing remarks that earned the most attention. In his signature style, Noah managed to bring a serious and thoughtful element to a night of ribbing and laughter when he admonished the press to recognize both their freedom and their responsibility.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com


“If you ever begin to doubt your responsibilities, if you ever begin to doubt how meaningful it is, look no further than what’s happening in Ukraine," Noah told the reporters in the room. "Look at what’s happening there. Journalists are risking and even losing their lives to show the world what is happening. You realize how amazing that is?

“In America, you have the right to seek the truth and speak the truth, even if it makes people in power uncomfortable. Even if it makes your viewers or readers uncomfortable. You understand how amazing that is?" he reiterated.

Noah pointed out that he had just stood there and made fun of the president of the United States and he was going to be fine. Then he contrasted that with the reality Russian journalists are living under Vladimir Putin.

“Ask yourself this question," he said to the members of the media. "If Russian journalists who are losing their livelihoods … and their freedom for daring to report on what their own government is doing—If they had the freedom to write any words, to show any stories, or to ask any questions—if they had, basically, what you have—would they be using it in the same way that you do?

"Ask yourself that question every day," he said, "because you have one of the most important roles in the world."

People had high praise for Noah's entire evening of hosting, but especially for his closing remarks. Russia's war on Ukraine has put a spotlight on many things we tend to take for granted, including the freedom of the press.

Journalists play a vital role in society and it's one they must take seriously. To be fair, most journalists do feel the weight of their responsibility, but the corporatization of news media and a 24/7 news cycle has created a competitive landscape in which coverage is sometimes determined by what will drive traffic or viewers rather than on what's truly newsworthy or important. The demonization of news outlets by some has also created a hostile media environment, and news organizations have to resist the urge to kowtow to the loudest voices or inadvertently amplify the wrong things. Journalists often have to fight for the truth on multiple fronts, sometimes inside their own newsrooms.

As we see attacks on the media ramping up, both legitimate criticisms and blatant violations of the first amendment, the responsibility shouldered by journalists is weightier than ever. Speaking truth to and about power may not always be popular, and being careful to get the facts straight may not result in as many clicks as sensational or conspiratorial headlines do, but when you cut through the noise of social media and the political melee, what will endure—hopefully—is the real reporting of what's actually happening. In addition to the public need to be intelligently and accurately informed, future generations will depend on the historical record that real reporters and journalists help provide.

Thank you, Trevor Noah, for reminding reporters that the fight is worth it and for using this opportunity to remind the press of its primary purpose with such a simple yet profound question.

This article originally appeared three years ago.

On June 28, 2018, a gunman opened fire in newsroom of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, killing five people.

Among the dead were four of the paper's editors and reporters and a sales assistant. After such a heinous tragedy, no one would have blamed the paper for shutting down for the day. No one would have blinked an eye if everyone who produces the paper had gone home to process the horror, mourn the loss of their friends and colleagues, and get away from the nightmare they had just experienced.

Police investigate the scene after a gunman killed five employees at the Capital Gazette. Photo by Saul Loeb/Getty Images.


But later on the day of the shooting, Capital Gazette reporter Chase Cook tweeted, "I can tell you this: We are putting out a damn paper tomorrow."

And they did. The Capital Gazette came out on schedule on June 29, 2018 — because journalists are amazing.

When the president and others call real journalism "fake news," these are the people they're spitting on.

Journalists are trained to run toward fire, not away from it. They're trained to look for facts and push their feelings to the side. They're trained to share true stories as objectively as possible, to recognize their own biases and do their best not to let those biases cloud their reporting. They are human, but they do their best to not let their human tendencies get in the way of truthfully reporting on what they're seeing and hearing.

And they keep doing that even when their entire profession — and even their existence — is being demonized and defamed. Because heroes keep showing up, even when the powers that be try to spin them into the bad guys. And when actual bad guys violently attack them, heroes keep doing what they do.

Real journalism is a real thing. It's not dead. It's not hopelessly corrupt. The vast majority of mainstream news outlets are made up of people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to seeking out truth and sharing it — even risking their own lives to do so.

Lynne Griffen, a journalism student of one of the people killed in the shooting, John McNamara, mourns near the newspaper's office. Photo via Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

The Capital Gazette publishing the day after a mass shooting in their own newsroom is just one example of journalists' heroic fortitude.

Any time we hear a Pulitzer-Prize-winning news outlet being smeared as peddling "fake news," we should picture the faces of the journalists who have died in the line of duty. The reporters, photographers, and camera operators who go to war zones to inform us of what's happening in the world, putting their own lives on the line in the process. The journalists who speak truth to power, who endure personal attacks and death threats as an unwritten part of their job description, who show up over and over no matter what because without them we would live in darkness.

A free press is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for a reason. Without real journalists seeking out and sharing truth, we are too easily led by propaganda, and power is too easily abused. Imagine a country where the government controls the press, where only stories the president likes are reported, where those in power choose what information the people have access to. Delegitimizing the majority of long-standing, well-reputed news outlets is a first big step toward that reality, and no free citizen should stand for it.

At the same time, journalists are human — and that humanity makes them good at their job.

Checking personal biases doesn't mean leaving humanity at the door. Despite the goal of objectively reporting the goings on in our world, people who work in the news are not robots, and we wouldn't want them to be. Sharing true stories and sharing them well requires a balance of staying detached while deeply caring.

The day after the shooting, the Capital Gazette editorial board published a simple, stark message on its opinion page that illustrates that truth.

"Today we are speechless. This page is intentionally left blank today to commemorate victims of Thursday's shooting at our office.
Gerald Fischman
Rob Hiaasen
John McNamara
Rebecca Smith
Wendi Winters
Tomorrow this page will return to its steady purpose of offering our readers informed opinion about the world around them, that they might be better citizens."





Here's to the heroes at the Capital Gazette, and to the thousands of journalists who keep fighting to share truth and inform our democracy.

The best vacations leave you feeling renewed and invigorated, ready to take on the world.

You spend a week on the shore somewhere or at Disneyland or at home binging Netflix and return to work feeling newly energized and inspired.

You know what I'm talking about? Laura Ingraham sure does.


After taking a "pre-planned" Easter vacation (which just so happened to coincide with advertisers dropping her show after she mocked Parkland survivor David Hogg), Ingraham returned to Fox News on April 9 to deliver a searing rant about how conservatives are being persecuted and shut down in America.

Ingraham's return to the air included a vow to "protect" the First Amendment.

Upon her return, Ingraham revealed that her show would feature a new segment. It's called "Defending the First," and according to ABC News, Ingraham has promised that she'll "expose the enemies of the First Amendment, of free expression, and every thought while showcasing those brave voices making a difference."

Ingraham followed this up with an impassioned plea for anyone who's been the subject of First Amendment violations to call on her for aid: "If you have been subjected to threats or intimidation because of your speech, I want to know about it," she said. "Tweet me, because without free speech and a free conscience, we are not truly a free people."

Is a boycott really a violation of the First Amendment though?

In her speech, Ingraham referred to herself as a "victim" of a boycott. The reality, though, is a little different. Ingraham's speech was not curtailed by the government, which is what the First Amendment is about.

Whenever this subject is brought up, I think of this XKCD comic, which is a nice reminder of which rights the First Amendment protects. (Hint: It's not the right to a TV show.)

[rebelmouse-image 19533212 dam="1" original_size="750x765" caption="Comic by XKCD, used with permission." expand=1]Comic by XKCD, used with permission.

Let's break it down further:

Had Ingraham been arrested, thrown in jail, or otherwise detained by agents of the government, then yes, she would absolutely have a point.

As the comic perfectly explains, however, as much as Ingraham may like to think of herself as a victim, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of the things you say. Nor can it force anyone to listen to you if what you've said isn't to their liking.

So if you malign the survivor of a mass shooting for not getting into a college and advertisers decide that's not where they want to put their money, their refusal isn't curtailing any civil liberties.

Boycotting is a legal and time-honored tradition of voting with one's money.

While Ingraham paints boycotting as something only "liberals" do, we must remember that conservatives are not new to cutting off businesses they do not agree with.

In 2017, conservatives boycotted Keurig (in the strangest way) when it stopped advertising on Sean Hannity's show. They also boycotted Nordstrom after it dropped Ivanka Trump's line. When Target announced a move to be more inclusive of the trans community in 2016, a boycott reportedly led the chain to lose millions of dollars.

President Donald Trump is no stranger to calling for boycotts either. While campaigning in 2015, he suggested Starbucks should be boycotted for not putting "Merry Christmas" on their cups. And in 2017, he called for NFL fans to walk out of games if players kneeled during the national anthem and said that protesting players should be fired.

Will Ingraham be championing those that have been hurt by these boycotts as well?

Let's not forget that Ingraham was making these points on her nationally broadcast talk show.

The idea that she's a victim feels a little hollow when you realize Ingraham's speaking from a national pulpit and earning millions of dollars while demanding compassion and righteous indignation from her legions of supporters — supporters she is allowed to speak at on a regular basis without fear of repercussions even as she refers to those who oppose her as "Stalinist." (FYI: Stalin would have never stood for this kind of free-wheeling invective on public media.)

You may remember the time Ingraham was accused of doing the Nazi salute, accused Hillary Clinton of doing the same thing in retaliation, and then still ended up with her own show instead of being prosecuted? Sounds a lot like free speech to me.

The First Amendment affords us all the right to speak out.

Defending the First Amendment makes perfect sense, but as XKCD so brilliantly points out, we owe it to ourselves and one another to understand what we're defending first.

Ingraham's talking points will surely rile up her fanbase. But her rhetoric — that any criticism of conservatives is tantamount to First Amendment violation — is disingenuous and divisive.

The First Amendment protects Ingraham's right to say what she wants. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

On July 26, 2017, President Trump tweeted this:

The tweet linked to a video on Instagram taken at the president's recent rally in Youngstown, Ohio, where he relayed the same message to supporters.

Except ... the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American the right to practice whatever religion they choose to practice and worship whichever God they choose — and that includes no religion or no God at all.


The separation of church and state, our Founding Fathers decided, is as American as apple pie.

The irony of Trump's tweet wasn't lost on Hend Amry, who also spotted a loophole in his statement.

Trump never specified which God. So Amry, a popular Muslim Arab American voice on Twitter, tweeted in response to the president:

The sentiment behind the phrase "Allahu Akbar" — roughly translated to "Allah [or God] is the greatest" in English — seemed to be a hit with other users, as the tweet quickly amassed over 20,000 Likes.

"THIS TWEET KNOWS NO IMPERFECTIONS," one user chimed in.

"ALLAHU AKBAR! I'm a Unitarian Universalist and atheist," another wrote, "but solidarity is important in these troubled times."

Amry's response, while tongue-in-cheek, perfectly nailed a vital contradiction in Trump's policy-making and worldview.

On one hand, Trump is a boisterous proponent of religion — so long as it's a specific kind of religion.

If you're Muslim, you or a family member may fall victim to Trump's bigoted, ill-informed immigration policies. If you're Jewish, you may not have too many allies in his White House — an administration that's "tacitly [embraced] anti-Semitism," according to some advocates.

Upon taking office, Trump swore to uphold the Constitution — and that includes respecting and protecting the First Amendment. Judging by his latest tweet, he's done a very poor job in doing so. SAD!