In journalism education, the First Amendment’s guarantee of press freedom is typically taught as a cornerstone of American democracy. Yet this approach too often fails to grapple with the historical and ongoing realities of racial inequality and the experiences of marginalized communities, particularly Black Americans, in relation to press freedom. The traditional emphasis on teaching journalists to be strictly “objective” often leads the press to report in ways that perpetuate the status quo and fail to hold those in power accountable.

In this chapter, I argue for a critical reexamination of how the First Amendment and press freedom are taught in journalism classrooms. I draw on historical analysis, legal case studies, and contemporary examples to advocate for a “reparative journalism” approach. By centering the voices and experiences of those who have been systematically excluded from the full protections of the First Amendment and by interrogating the complex relationship between race, power, and the press, this approach seeks to develop a more inclusive, historically grounded, and forward-looking vision of journalism’s role in society.

Historically, local newsgatherers played a key democracy-enhancing role by keeping their communities informed about local events and holding local elected officials to account. As the market for local news has evaporated, more and more cities have become “news deserts.” Meanwhile, fewer national legacy news providers can afford to invest in the processes and expertise needed to produce high-quality news about our increasingly complex world. The true crisis of press legitimacy is the declining cultural investment in the systematic gathering of high-quality news produced by independent, transparent, and trustworthy sources.

Although scholars usually point to a handful of cultural and economic factors as undermining news quality and press credibility, various critics now identify a more covert culprit: the US Supreme Court. The Court is partly to blame for the press’s declining credibility, these critics claim, because the Court’s First Amendment decisions hinder the ability of state defamation law to hold the press accountable for defamatory falsehoods. The implication is that the press would regain much of its credibility if the Court would remove these constitutional barriers – especially the requirement that public officials and public figures demonstrate “actual malice” on the part of the press for a defamation claim to prevail. Nonetheless, as this chapter explains, the current landscape of high-profile defamation cases, and the public reaction to them, casts doubt on whether things could be so easy.

This chapter aims to articulate a positive-rights paradigm that marshals contemporary, historical, and international legal frameworks to argue that government should have an affirmative duty to guarantee meaningful access to news and information for everyone. Drawing from democratic, legal, and economic theories, the chapter builds on a long lineage of argumentation – from Alexander Meiklejohn and Jerome Barron to more recent arguments advanced by C. Edwin Baker and Martha Minow – for why the First Amendment does not forbid government interventions that promote journalism. If we assume that press freedom is rendered meaningless without a press to protect, we arguably should go even further to compel the government to make targeted and democratically determined interventions into the media marketplace to guarantee public alternatives when private commercial media institutions fail to serve democratic needs.

There is a conflict in law and in journalism ethics regarding the appropriateness of truthful but scandalous information: What should be published and what should be edited out? In the past, judges routinely gave the press the right to make such determinations and often sided with journalists even in surprising situations in which the privacy of the individual seemed clear. In modern internet times, however, some courts are more willing to side with the privacy of individuals over First Amendment press freedoms – and the case brought by professional wrestler Hulk Hogan against the Gawker website for publishing his sex tape without permission is one example. This chapter uses that scenario to explore the clash between an individual’s privacy rights and the rights of the press to decide what is news.

The news industry today is no longer economically powerful: Newspapers are in peril, television and cable viewership are in decline, news deserts dot the landscape, and jaw-dropping numbers of journalistic staff cuts have drained expertise from newsrooms. Social media have cannibalized content and replaced scarcity of frequencies with scarcity of attention, and the news industry has far less political power.

Under these circumstances, the fate of the press’s functions is an existential question both for the news media as we know it and for contemporary American democracy. Managing the complexity of this kind of information environment calls for independent and principled engagement with issues of public concern by those who hew to journalistic values, such as truth, verification, completeness, investigation, and context. It also calls for appropriate legal protections.

In this chapter, I seek to explore the evolving mosaic of threats facing the American press and consider what, if any, legal “rights” wielders of the press function need in response. I begin by identifying a set of key threats facing the press – from economic, legal, technological, and audience-based developments. I then propose some initial responses to these threats along five dimensions: funding conditions, a mixed legal strategy, AI policy, industry restructuring, and trust enhancement. I also call for a commitment to press self-examination from the vantage point of fundamental journalistic values in a democracy.

This chapter examines the continuing impact of Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., a case in which a large grocery store chain sued ABC and its news producers for conducting an undercover investigation that resulted in a nationally broadcast television news story showing serious concerns about Food Lion’s food handling and sanitation practices. Although the court’s decision affirmed only a nominal damages verdict against the producers who investigated the story, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that Food Lion’s tort claims were in any way limited by the First Amendment. The chapter argues that Food Lion has had an ongoing, significant chilling effect on undercover investigations, particularly those where an investigator secures employment with the investigation’s target. Such investigations are critical to the discovery and dissemination of truthful information on matters of profound public concern. Drawing on limited public data and published information as well as interviews of those who conducted the Food Lion investigation, the chapter shows the reduction in undercover investigation since the case was decided. It concludes by contending that reconsideration of Food Lion’s legal analysis is long overdue and sets out the groundwork for recognition of a limited First Amendment newsgathering privilege for undercover investigations.

Social media and the internet are the most important changes in communication since the development of the printing press. They democratize the ability to reach a mass audience, but they can also quickly spread harmful information and threaten the viability of traditional media that are essential for newsgathering. Courts have thus far largely approached these media by applying existing doctrines of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. But these doctrines are often, though not always, inadequate to deal with the issues posed by social media and the internet. It is important to identify those areas where traditional doctrines are inadequate and to begin to develop new First Amendment and statutory approaches.

This chapter examines how government entities determine who is a journalist to allocate resources under conditions of scarcity and to assure that the press can conduct its functions without undue government regulation and interference. Using a new dataset of 172 laws, rules, and procedures that different government entities have used to define the press, it describes the most common tests government entities use for identifying journalists and compares them to each other. The chapter then makes four normative recommendations about the tests government entities should use to define journalists. First, government entities should have explicit and meaningful standards for press exceptionalism. Second, most press exceptionalism should be limited to professional journalists who regularly produce news stories or commentary. Third, press exceptionalism should not turn on the type of technology used to communicate. Fourth, government entities should continue to have the power to grant press exceptionalism to “bona fide correspondents of repute in their profession” so long as they do not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

At the time of his death in 1964, Sean O’Casey left a substantial body of disparate writings. His poetry, journalism, short stories, diaries, and his history of the Irish Citizen Army have received scant scholarly attention, but give us important clues about his literary development and his debt to other writers. This chapter examines some of these diverse writings to show how O’Casey experimented with a number of different forms. It also shows how O’Casey remained committed to writing in different genres throughout his life, and the chapter reveals some of the literary touchstones that would inform his non-theatrical writings.

The mock arts written by Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope and their circle touched on issues of mechanical instruction, but their satire depended on its application to incongruously non-mechanical subjects. It was in Gulliver’s Travels that Swift turned more directly to descriptions of material production and mechanical ingenuity. The framing of those descriptions in a travel narrative recalls Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Both texts reduced scenes of human ingenuity and manufacture to a proto-anthropological ground zero in distant and solitary locations. But reading Gulliver and Crusoe from a mock-technical perspective reveals a surprising reversal in their authors’ attitudes to mechanical ingenuity. Defoe, the propagandist for commerce, is sceptical about the value and cognitive significance of handicraft skill. Swift, by contrast, uses his commentary on mechanical technique to depict different richly-imagined ecologies of mind in the four parts of Gulliver’s Travels.

This exposé of some very unreliable media highlights the need for all of us to be critically assessing our media sources, in order to be well-informed on the key issues of our day. Scrutinising press behaviour, for example phone hacking, and the role of think tanks, the chapter ends with useful criteria by which to assess the credibility of an information source and what each of us can do to improve standards of truth in media.

Although a product of his time – the literary traditions of Pope, Addison, and Swift; the Toryism and churchmanship of the eighteenth century – Samuel Johnson also transcended it through his own gifts and forceful character. After a difficult early life, marked by melancholy, a troubled relationship with his family, and an early departure from Oxford University, Johnson began to find his way in the 1730s. He married Elizabeth Porter, moved to London, and began to make his mark through work at the Gentleman’s Magazine and works such as the Life of Savage. He achieved renown as an essayist and fame as the compiler of the Dictionary but also suffered from bereavement and continuing financial insecurity. After the award of a government pension in 1762, Johnson’s works have a more relaxed style, and his final major work, the Lives of the Poets, helped to establish this era as the Age of Johnson.

British reviewers often opposed the distasteful ‘physiological’ experiments of their European neighbours while simultaneously embracing laboratory principles and methods to dissect the practice of criticism. Chapter 8 surveys the newspapers and periodicals of the period to show that vivisectional terminology was remarkably sprawling in its applications and meanings. Experimental physiology’s modus operandi was used to shape and articulate key methodological and ideological principles emerging in late-Victorian literary-critical theory and practice. Namely, allusions to ‘vivisection’ expressed a growing professionalism and a shift from an ‘illustrative’ to a dispassionate ‘analytical’ mode, paralleling the trend towards ‘scientific’ historiography. Certain authors such as George Eliot, William Thackeray, and Charlotte Brontë were persistently labelled ‘literary vivisectors’, and the chapter ends by arguing that romanticised notions of the sympathetic female author presented one obstacle to objective, ‘vivisectional’ fin-de-siècle literary criticism.

This chapter explores the erosion of trust in public facts and the crisis within commonsense conceptions of reality. It traces the evolution of scientific practices, emphasizing the role of early experimental scientists like Robert Boyle in grounding them. Ezrahi argues that the contemporary breakdown of epistemological norms, which previously upheld facts as sociopolitical currency, inevitably undermines the foundations of contemporary democracy. The citizens' diminished confidence in understanding why political actors behave in specific ways, coupled with the disparities between motives and visible effects, fosters the proliferation of conspiracy theories. The current breakdown of epistemological norms manifests itself in the “post truth” era and the ascent of “alternative facts.” Ezrahi scrutinizes the challenges of discerning facts from opinions in journalism and underscores the perils of exposure to fake news. The chapter investigates the erosion of a shared commonsense perception of reality through the lens of the Brexit campaign and the Trump presidency. Ezrahi highlights that the blurring of the cosmological dichotomy between Nature and humans has made it increasingly challenging for the public to differentiate between facts and fiction. Finally, he advocates for an awareness of the public’s role in defining political causes and facts.