A basic right unconstrained

Posted by Marc Hodak on January 10, 2011 under Unintended consequences | Be the First to Comment

The horrible shooting in Tucson this weekend predictably took over the airwaves.   A multiple shooting may have garnered national headlines in any case, but the fact that a congresswoman was a victim added huge momentum to the story.  It turns out that she was specifically targeted by the shooter, but that wasn’t known at the time that the incident made national headlines.  Targeting a public official, of course, raises bigger issues about political violence, the integrity of our democratic institutions, etc.  (It also enables people to politicize the shooting, although many such people apparently didn’t need any facts about the shooter’s intent to proceed down that path.)

In all the hand wringing about violence to public officials, no one seems to be questioning the role of the press in making such incidents more likely (least of all the press).  A free society does not constrain the press even if massive press attention to the shooting of a member of congress might, in fact, creating more such shootings or attempts.  A truly free press can even, if indirectly plant the idea in the head of some deranged person looking for instant fame by publishing this:

“I hate to put this in the newspaper, but we don’t have any security,” [Congressman] Sherman said.

I think it likely that publishing such an ironic comment, combined with the over-the-top coverage given to the shooting of a congresswoman, creates a greater security risk for congress members, and ultimately contributes to the larger problems that this coverage highlights.  Is freedom of the press worth such a risk?  I happen to think so.  Given the lack of attention this issue has gotten in the media, the media clearly thinks so, and probably so does most everyone else.  I just wonder how people decide which freedoms are worth a risk of violence, institutional integrity, etc., and which are not.