Musket and Quill
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
I. Introduction to Part I
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution came as a convenient compromise to secure ratification. It is easy to follow the traditional assumption that the founding fathers intended solely to secure freedom of the press for the young Republic. A closer study, however, might challenge this noble motive, when one considers that the Alien and Sedition Acts threatened to eliminate this new freedom less that a decade after ratification. The political expediency of its passage, in the midst of the Federalist debate with the Jeffersonians, might very well have negated the privileges that the American media enjoys today.
The purpose of this essay is to provide a roadmap of sources that will trace the chronological development of events leading up to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, and to describe the historical path that freedom of expression has taken from that time to the present. The literature search for this topic was three-tiered: Politically, the government’s attitude at any particular moment in history will affect the role of the press and the control thereof; Legally, the constitutional basis for freedom of expression is the direct offspring of the philosophical character of the government; and finally, Censorship of that free expression is an issue that defies accurate clarification even today. The citations that follow will generally place the sources in one of these three categories. For readability and practical application, these works will be taken in chronological order.
XI. Conclusion
The possibility of sedition-like legislation being passed into law may not be very real or imminent. Yet it is one that the American people must guard against and be aware of through intelligent analysis and research. How is the media perceived by the average American and is it worthy of all this protection? Several years ago, Senate Chaplain, Reverend Richard C. Halversen DD, opened a session of that august body with a prayer that encouraged support for those "Who work in their campaigns, that they may be insulated against unfair attacks from opposition and a cynical press--" (13). In a Gallup Poll conducted in the Spring of 1980, 79 percent of Americans surveyed, approved of continued investigative reporting (as opposed to straight, objective summaries) (33). Finally, John Immerwahr and John Doble writing in Public Opinion Quarterly (39) pointed to a survey conducted between June 1979 and March 1980. In it, the 2:1 majority of those polled opposed any law prohibiting news stories that embarrass the President, government, or the country as a whole. It would seem that support for the media was unanimous.
There is another side of the coin, however. The Janet Cooke incident and the Westmoreland case come to mind. A National Libel center for journalists has been established because of the intensity and number of cases. As the umbrella of national security concern is widened by the administration and as the economy causes a corresponding scrutiny of government operations by the media. All parties will vie for public endorsement of their positions. If the media is to enjoy continued protection under the First Amendment, it must be responsible in its role as watchdog of the government. While Watergate may have proven the power of the press, it also created an apprehensive and adversary relationship with the same government. This is not a naïve nor idealistic appraisal- it is simply essential for our survival as the leader of the Free World and a tenet that is held dearly by all Americans under the U.S. Constitution.
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
A generation of journalists have come along who never experienced any of the systems of censorship and control of journalistic endeavor that were common in wars prior to the one in Southeast Asia. In such a situation, there is a premium on the need for understanding. If journalist and soldier are forever to be facing each other across from their respective barricades, at best observing uneasy truces, there needs to be a constant flow of communication designed to keep the aims clear and the issues current. When a military person succeeds well in doing that, we journalists naturally will be eager to say thanks. Such a one is Col. (ret) David R. Kiernan, who is Director of Strategic Communications for MPRI in Alexandria, Virginia. Through study and career-oriented academic research, Kiernan may be the best informed person wearing Army green today on the past, present, and future of the First Amendment and the military. He is among a new breed of Army press relations professionals. A graduate of Virginia Military Institute, he got a master’s degree in mass communication from the University of South Carolina while on duty at Fort Jackson, S.C., in the 1970’s. He was editor of the prestigious Infantry Journal at Fort Benning, GA., and Pentagon Chief of Media Relations for the US Army in 1990-1991. The book has whetted my appetite for several areas of study, especially about the censorship programs of World War I and II and the Korean War. The conclusion is thus inevitable and correct: censorship could not have changed the outcome of the Vietnam War, but press coverage of the war obviously did have an impact on public attitudes and support of the conflict. On this issue and many others, Kiernan has put together an excellent assessment and guide to understanding, it could become a handbook for both journalists and soldiers.
About the Author
Mr. Rick Kiernan was born in Brooklyn, New York. He attended The Virginia Military Institute where he received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English and a Commission as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army. Kiernan served twenty-six years as an Infantry officer, retiring as a full Colonel in 1993. During his military career he served in Germany, Vietnam, Alaska, Hawaii, and Saudi Arabia. In 1991, he led the last military delegation to the former Soviet Union to assist that nation in its Public Affairs and Media Relations programs. Colonel Kiernan is a Paratrooper who received two Bronze Stars in combat, three awards of the Legion of Merit for achievement, and numerous commendations for service from both the U. S. government as well as the Republic of South Vietnam, Kuwait, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As a Public Affairs Officer, he has been the Managing Editor of three Newspapers, host of a Public Television show, Editor-in-Chief of a monthly Magazine, and Chief Pentagon Spokesman for the U. S. Army during Operation Just Cause in Panama and the Gulf War. He served on General Schwarzkopf’s staff as the Director of the Joint Information Bureau in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield. Upon his retirement in 1993, Mr. Kiernan was selected to be the Director of both Press Operations and Public information for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. He was responsible for establishing the Main Press Center for 5,000 journalists from 197 countries and speaking 44 languages. Since 1996, he has continued his work in Mass Communications. In June, 2000, Kiernan organized an International Media Symposium for fifty Attendees representing twenty-two countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. He currently serves as the Director of Strategic Communications for MPRL, a global training corporation. In this role he is responsible for Corporate Communications and the Public Affairs programs in Eastern Europe and Africa. Mr. Kiernan received a Masters Degree in Mass Communication from the University of South Carolina and has completed Post Graduate study at The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.