Crossroads -- Trying to tell "good" free speech from "bad" free speech

Press definitions of terms such as 'liberal' and 'right wing' still matter in public life, as seen in verbal wars in Brussels and at NPR

Yes, the old-school liberal journalist Uri Berliner resigned at National Public Radio (#ShockedShocked) after being blasted for writing his very candid essay at The Free Press. And, yes, the omnipresent Christopher F. Rufo has been busy parsing just about everything that NPR CFO Katherine Maher has ever shared on the Internet via a keyboard, camera or microphone.

But try to forget words like “liberal” vs. “conservative” for a moment.

In one memorable tweet, Maher noted that, in the United States, the First Amendment makes it hard for journalists to rid the public square of “bad information” from “influence peddlers” who do not deserve coverage. Also, she isn’t very comfortable wrestling with “truth” claims, since different people have different “truths” and it’s hard to have debates about complicated things like that. Republican gadfly Vivek Ramaswamy, on X, publicized this quote from Maher: “Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction getting in the way of finding common ground & getting things done.”

Actually, we do need to talk about terms like “liberal” and “conservative” since the struggle to define these kinds of journalism labels was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast.

For almost a decade, I have been asking journalists and politicos this question: What do you call people who are weak when it comes to defending free speech, weak when defending religious liberty and weak when defending freedom of association? I would argue that it’s inaccurate to call them “liberals,” since a fervent defense of First Amendment rights has long been a core doctrine of classical liberalism.

Many writers prefer “progressive,” while “leftist” may work in a strictly political context. I often say “illiberal,” when describing the new “woke” activists, especially those in academia, who are eager to shout down speakers with whom they disagree.

What about “left wing” or “far left”? That would make sense if one takes a mirror-image approach to studying labels used in the pages of the Washington Post. If you doubt me on that, check out the original headline on this story: “Conference featuring Europe’s far-right elites faces shutdown order.”

The lede fits perfectly inside the common “conservatives pounce” news-media template:

BRUSSELS — A Brussels mayor on Tuesday ordered the shutdown of a gathering of “national conservatives” that was underway in the Belgian capital, giving Europe’s hard-right elites a further opportunity to rail against cancel culture and Brussels overreach.

Can liberals “rail”? I doubt it.

During this standard-length news article, the various far-hard-right groups and individuals were described as “far-right, Euroskeptic officials,” a “far-right” group that was a threat to safety, a “far-right candidate,” a “far-right think tank” (named after the famous mainstream conservative Edmund Burke), an unnamed speaker who offered a “far-right academic blast” and, lo and behold, an ordinary reference to “conservatives.”

The conference drew “anti-fascist” protesters, which implied that the people inside the conference were, well, you know.

Those looking for a bit of diversity can, as you would expect, read the feature at The Free Press with this headline: “Censorship in the Name of Safety.”

For another old-liberal take, see this story at The New Statesman: “Inside the police vs the NatCons — A failed attempt to shut down the conference in Brussels made Nigel Farage’s point for him.” The conclusion:

The event is being held on the same road as the European Commission’s competition authority. The symbolism is undeniable. The actions of the police and the mayor will lead to far greater coverage of the conference than it would otherwise have received. It is also a testament to the conference’s argument that even at the heart of Europe free speech is under threat – a point the attendees are poised to make.

I will end by repeating a variation on my earlier journalism question: What term should reporters, in hard-news reports, use to label people who are weak when it comes to defending free speech, weak when defending religious liberty and weak when defending freedom of association?

Enjoy the podcast and, please, share it with others. You can also subscribe to “Crossroads” via Apple podcasts.