Trust Fall: The Long Slide of American Press Freedom

CORY BARKER: On January 14th, federal agents showed up at the home of Hannah Natanson, a Washington Postjournalist. But instead of providing information, they were there to collect it. They arrived with a search warrant, agents seized phones and electronic devices as part of an investigation that, according to reporting, was aimed at identifying the journalist sources for press freedom advocates. The search crossed a line long treated as fundamental in American journalism; the idea that reporters should be able to protect the people who speak to them. The incident didn't happen in isolation. It came amid months of escalating pressure on news organizations that include political attacks, legal threats, ownership changes and growing concerns about the influence of powerful interests inside major media companies. For many journalists, it's starting to feel like the guardrails that once protected the press are eroding.

MATT JORDAN: To help us make sense of this moment, what it says about the current state of press freedom, we're talking with Tim Richardson. He's the program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America, where he focuses on threats to press freedom and the spread of false information. Before that, Tim spent more than a decade at The Washington Post, including time as a breaking news editor during some of the country's most consequential events, from the protests following the killing of George Floyd to the storming of the US Capitol. We're going to talk with him about The Washington Post journalist, read the broader political climate for journalists and what it means when the institutions meant to protect the free press start to change. Cory wasn't able to take part in this conversation, so I'll be talking to Tim one-on-one. Tim Richardson, welcome to News Over Noise.

TIM RICHARDSON: Thank you for having me.

MATT JORDAN: So, tell me a little bit about or tell us a little bit about PEN America. You know, its history and what it does.

TIM RICHARDSON: Sure. So, PEN America is a 103-year-old nonpartisan nonprofit. And we're focused at the intersection of literature and human rights to support free expression. And I kind of think of it as there's kind of two halves to the organization, really. One really focuses heavily on, you know, authors literary works. The other focuses heavily, and this is where my area is, on free expression. So, specifically, you know, I work on journalism and disinformation. We have teams that work on fighting book bans. We have teams that work toward advocating for higher education and other instances of free expression. But those are really the two kind of main kind of kind of the two main buckets of work, really within the organization.

MATT JORDAN: What was happening 102 years ago to… what was the impetus for the starting of PEN America?

TIM RICHARDSON: That is a great question. I will say PEN America is one of many, many PENs all across the world. So, while PEN America is the largest, it is certainly not the only pen. They are, you know, there are organizations across the world. And so, we are really just one of many in that regard.

MATT JORDAN: Well, you know, the timing is about is correct in a way, insofar as for about a century, I guess that would have been after the around the time of the founding of PEN America. And then and for about a century, America was doing really well with press freedom. Right? We were kind of continuing to be this kind of beacon on a hill. Other democracies would look at us we were compared with and then things started to slide a little bit. And so, over the last bit of time here, the, the Reporters Without Borders has an index of world press freedom. And the United States for the last decade or so has been, sliding, I think in the last count, in the 2005 press index, press Freedom index. We went from 55 to 57. And again, there are variety of reasons for that. But what has been happening into the press in America?

TIM RICHARDSON: So, this has been a long slide, I think, for, you know, a lot of reasons, many of them good. We focused a lot on some of the assaults against the First Amendment, the assault, assaults against the free press that have happened. You know, just over the in recent years and maybe over the past 12 months. But this has not been something, you know, that kind of those assaults on a free press have not just happened. You know, just, over the past year or so, it's a lot of things have happened. And, you know, part of that is, I think the discrediting of, of the news media has been a huge part of that. We've seen that happening for years. Certainly, when Trump took office, during his first term, there was, a significant amount of rhetoric that was targeted at reporters and credible information. We've seen that, continue now. But I do think that in some cases, in some ways that has been effective. I mean, it just that's I think the reality we see, the trust in the news media is now at a historic low. I believe it was pegged at something like 28%, a few months ago. And it's never been lower than that. So, I think that a lot of that also has to do with the fractured media environment. Everyone is kind of, you know, choosing your own adventure. There is confirmation bias of people seeking out information, where they know their ideology and their viewpoints will not be challenged. And in some of those instances, there is, continued discrediting of, you know, you can call it the mainstream media, the legacy media. I like to say, you know, the kind of credible reporters, credible outlets. But there is that demonization and a lot of critical content, focused on, outlets that are providing credible information. And that has just kind of whittled down the trust in the news media over the years. And I think a lot of that is why we are where we are in this moment.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah, a lot of the start of the attack of the on the press, you know, starts around, around the late 60s, you know, with the kind of, attack on the bias of journalists. Right? That was that became a strategy other than, well, other than degrading the trust of the public. What is some of the outcome of divisive rhetoric, like calling reporters enemy of the people and stuff like that?

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah, I mean, we've seen we've seen, right. Reporters, you know, certainly enemy of the people was something that came out a few years ago. But I think what we saw kind of what we've moved from a lot of the rhetoric that we saw, you know, in the first Trump administration to more recently over these past, 12, 13 months, a lot of action. And I think that is really what makes this moment, different. And it is not just the White House. It is much of the entire administration that has, implemented policies, regulation, you know, from the standpoint of the FCC to really harm a free press. And, you know, I mean, you mentioned some of the insults we've seen. The president called reporters piggy, terrible, making critical comments about their appearance, certainly their intelligence. And it's definitely worth noting that the vast majority of these insults have targeted female reporters as well. And, you know, we do continue to see those insults, creep up, along with a lot of the other, you know, it's not just rhetoric, but it's action. And there's lawsuits. And I'm sure we'll talk a lot about a lot more about some of those things that we're seeing. But there are certainly has been a very intense escalation in a lot of these actions, and rhetoric, but also, you know, actions and lawsuits and those sorts of things that have happened over the last several months,

MATT JORDAN: Given the scope of the many patterns around the world, you know, free press associations around the world, how much of this is stuff that others have seen around the world? And what does it usually portend to?

TIM RICHARDSON: I think that's a great question, because a lot of our work in the press freedom space focused overseas, for, you know, several years ago, we weren't doing a lot of press freedom work in the United States. And the way that we are now, because there wasn't really the same need for it. You know, the press is, I think, was more respected. Certainly, the threats to a free press were a fraction of what they were now. But that has changed. A lot of organizations, PEN America included, has focused, significantly, their work on defending a free press in the United States because it is under attack in ways that we've never seen in modern history. So, you know, some of those resources that have been used, and not just PEN, but many organizations, you know, press freedom organizations, have shifted resources back here, back home, for those that are, you know, based domestically to try to advocate for a free press, here in the US. And because it just wasn't something that was necessarily needed in the past.

MATT JORDAN: So, let's get into some of the details of that. You said a second ago that what we're seeing in the last, you know, 12 months or so and maybe some of this kind of started in the first Trump administration is of a, of a different type of, of coercion. And we had little bit of coercion. We might have had some access, you know, kind of denying people access before. But what has changed that has been surprising to you?

TIM RICHARDSON: So there really has been an onslaught of actions targeting a free press. But I think you have to take it, you know, there's a bigger picture here. And that is the really, you know, kind of the targeting of credible information that would allow the administration to insert its narrative and try to dominate that narrative. If you can clamp down on the, on the, you know, credible information that's coming from outlets and journalists whose entire mission is to hold power to account, and you can insert your own narrative that, you know, that gives you more, more power to further your narrative. So, you know, look at the very first weeks in office when the White House, banished the Associated Press from the press pool over content. Really, because the Associated Press refused to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. That is a case that still winding its way through court. We've seen the Pentagon boot out the press corps, you know, outlets that have for decades held, the Pentagon and its leadership to account for its decisions. They were gone because they, you know, they, had to leave essentially because they refused to sign, an agreement with the Pentagon that, in essence, would not have allowed them to do journalism within the walls of the Pentagon. So, the Pentagon is still being held to account by credible reporters, but they're doing it from home, or they're doing it in their newsroom, as opposed to within the Pentagon itself. We've seen the president personally file lawsuits against media organizations over content that he doesn't like. We've seen the defunding of the U.S. agency for Global Media, which Voice of America is the outlet that's maybe what most well-known within that. But there are others, Voice of America and others are Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia. We've seen the defunding of public media, you know, NPR, PBS losing their federal funding. That's a move, of course, that Congress approved but at the request of the president. So, there is a very long line of attacks against the media that we have seen from the beginning of the administration through now. And, of course, more recently, we had the FBI raid against Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson House, which was just unprecedented, we've had two arrests of journalists, Don Lemon and Georgia Fort. So those are, you know, there really has been a very significant escalation. And one of the things that's surprising to me is how I think there is a I think there's a lack of understanding or a lack of awareness. I, you know, from the public as to what exactly is happening from a press freedom standpoint. There was a study that was done earlier in the administration and Trump 2.0, looking at awareness, public awareness of the threats to a free press. And it is, you know, that the percentage of Americans who are aware of what is happening is roughly half, what it was during Trump's first term. That was a study that was done several months ago. It is quite possible that that awareness has increased. I haven't seen any, you know, updated surveys in that regard, but that is something that I have personally found alarming is just that lack of awareness there.

MATT JORDAN: You know, it's very surprising to me that there is a lack of awareness. You would think that an industry that is under attack, that is at least, an attack either through kind of overt ways or subtle coercive ways, and there are many of those that we can talk about as well would, would rally, would circle the wagons, would, everybody would be writing about this. Why do you think that the press has been so silent about the attack on the press?

TIM RICHARDSON: I don't know that the I guess I wouldn't necessarily say the press has been silent about it. I think I just think that there has been a ton of news. There is a constant onslaught of news happening everywhere you look. There's a new headline, that headline lasts a day or two. You know, a news cycle that used to last for a few days. Now it lasts, you know, for a day or even a few hours, of course, depending on the case. So, I think it is just that our attentions, we're being forced to look in so many different directions that it's, it's unless this is something that people understand, understand directs them effectively. Of course, I would argue that it does. But you know, I think for the average American, it's kind of just kind of hard to see how, you know, they think this maybe is something that is affecting journalists as opposed to their personal lives. And meanwhile, you've got ten other headlines that are, that are happening in these other huge stories, and there's never really an end to it. And I think that is a lot of the reason behind it.

MATT JORDAN: Well, I mean, recently we saw, journalist basically being attacked on almost on screen, you know, in terms of because the video was available, we had in Minneapolis, we had six journalists who were attacked by ICE agents, John Abernathy, a photographer for Getty, Whitney Wild for CNN. Jalyssa Dugrot from MintPress News. JT Cestkowski from Status Coup, Jon Farina from Status Coup, KingDemetrius Pendleton from Listen Media. These are people that were attacked basically on screen. And yet the public still is sleeping on this. It seems, odd.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. You know, we've seen these assaults against reporters happening in several places now, of course we saw them, you know, what's happened in Minneapolis in these last few weeks has been awful. And yet it follows what we saw earlier in Chicago, which, you know, follows earlier. You know, what we saw earlier in Los Angeles, we've seen this take place in New York. And so, this has happened all across the country. And we've seen journalists assaulted at the hands of ICE agents. And I think what is also, we also have to remember that some of the governments narratives that have come out of some of these events, and I'm specifically thinking about the shootings of Renée Good and Alex Peretti, how, you know, those are narratives where we're frankly not correct. I mean, there were there were false narratives, from the government. It was disinformation being peddled by the government. And I think that is another, it's forcing journalists to continue to do work reporting on these kinds of difficult stories at the same time, when there's an entire economic crisis around journalism, there are fewer reporters. And, of course, you know, as you mentioned, they're being attacked on American streets. And I think it is it's kind of a perfect, a perfect storm at the same time that the work that they're doing is really, more crucial than, you know, I think, frankly, that we've seen in quite some time as well.

MATT JORDAN: I mean, it is confusing that the press has been so slow to respond with different modes of reporting, right, that, you know, there's a kind of a standard way of reporting government where official source says something that sources quoted. But we've seen like, as you said, with the ICE attacks in Minneapolis, in other words, the administration basically embraced misinformation as a strategy. Absolutely. Putting out these false frames. Do you think that it might behoove people in the press to maybe not so courageously and instead of graphically report everything that the administration says?

TIM RICHARDSON: Well, I wouldn't say they're being stenographers. I don't think that's a correct assessment. I think you have to look very you know, you have to look at the entire information ecosystem, which is a bit of a mess. And it depends on where you're getting your information. I mean, if there are amazing reporters, you know, local reporters based in Minnesota who have done fantastic work on the ground, there are, of course, there are lots of national outlets, who have reporters on the ground, and they're doing great work. So I think you have to look at what your source is, because there is still a ton of fantastic journalism that is out there, incredible reporters, incredible outlets that are doing their best to hold, you know, the government to account, whether it's ICE, you know, lead other, other, federal officials within Minnesota here in Washington. So, I think people need to be careful and cautious about where they're getting their information, because if you're getting your information from the right places, you are getting credible information that is telling you exactly what is happening on the ground. Unfortunately, there are others who, for weather, political reasons or other financial reasons because, you know, maybe that knowing the way that social media algorithms work or they're feeding people lies, frankly, in some cases, or spin, if you want to put it a little bit more diplomatically, but in many cases it is straight up disinformation. So, it just matters where people are getting their information. There is still a ton of great work that is happening on the ground. Right?

MATT JORDAN: Because and that, I guess, goes to another way in which the freedom of the press can be counted, right. It's not just in the sensor of reporters or in the closing of outlets, although that's a lot of important. But there are these subtler methods of coercion that we're also seeing operationalized in many ways. One of those is ownership, right? What's happened in the ownership space over the last quarter century that has made press freedom more problematic?

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah, we certainly have seen a, a lot of consolidation. We've seen, you know, lots of the large newspaper companies, for example. And I think sometimes we maybe falsely use newspaper as a proxy for, for credible information, which I think is a mistake. But there are lots of other great sources of information beyond newspapers that said, you know, we've seen thousands of newspapers closed their doors, we've seen ownership consolidate. We've seen in some cases, billionaire tech owners. The Washington Post, my former employer, comes to mine own, you know, purchase, these assets in some cases, have done a great job. This is not to say that they've all done poorly, because that's not the case, but certainly in the case of Jeff Bezos, just the news that we've seen over the past few days with layoffs, the pulling of a presidential endorsement, the change in the direction of the editorial page. But this also isn't an issue related to newspapers. We've seen it in broadcast, where now there are just a small handful of players that own a large percentage of the affiliate stations across the country. So, we have seen, a significant you know, even if you look at newspapers, for example, you've seen in many, many cases these kind of venture capitalist companies come in and sell the place for parts and in some ways, and reduce the number of, reporters that they have. So, yeah, it is a tough industry. The economics are very challenging right now. There have been some success stories, particularly in the kind of the nonprofit newsroom space. But yeah, the consolidation has only, I think, caused a continued reduction in the number of reporters that we're seeing. And frankly, it's reduced the viewpoints that people have access to. When you have just a small handful of organizations that control, you know, have so much control over, over the information space.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. And in that and the kind of leverage being used to for even those which aren't ideologically aligned with the current administration, they're getting a lot of leverage put in their in their way. Again, if you go back to your former employer, The Washington Post, I think it was the must have been for Super Bowls ago when they put out the Democracy Dies and Darkness commercial. Right? Which was this big glossy thing, which was ominous and the music swelled and whatnot and, and they staked the claim against this type of thing. What happened in Trump two, regime that made, Washington Post do such an about face?

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. It's just been so demoralizing and disheartening to see what's happened. And I just, I have so much respect for my former colleagues who, no longer have jobs and certainly those who are still within the newsroom but are but have seen, you know, our kind of working in a space with so many fewer people. Now, I think that the Jeff Bezos that owned The Washington Post for the first many, many years, he bought it in 2013, I believe, was not the Jeff Bezos, frankly, that we see today. He was a great he was a fantastic owner. He was hands off, you know, never once did he insert his, you know, his will or his opinion into the news pages at all. And I don't believe, you know, I don't work on the opinion side, but I wasn't aware of anything happening there as well. So, he was a great owner. Put, you know, a ton of resources into the product, expanded the newsroom significantly. And then, you know, now we see him at the side of the president, a president who, you know, criticizes and harms, free press at every turn whenever he can. And I think that just Bezos has it. I think he probably has more interest in the company, which is the, you know, the source of his wealth, of course, Amazon and also his passion is Blue Origin, you know, the space company that he owns. And just a few days ago, you know, Pete Hegseth, who kicked out The Washington Post and many other credible news or outlets visited Jeff Bezos and Florida, I believe. And Bezos was singing his praise, talking about how great it was that he was there and that just the side by side of seeing that happening as reporters are being booted from the Pentagon, and, you know, the post is losing a third, probably more than one third of its staff, of course, that coming after a couple of other rounds of buyouts in recent years has just been really, sad to see. And, you know, it's harmful for the post, but, you know, it's harmful for the entire industry that holds power to account. And, you know, it just shows how journalism is struggling. And it's just it's awful news for democracy as a whole, really.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. Like you said, the, the you know, I think what's, what's happened in Washington, you could say that has been happening in cities all over the all over the country, right, where metro papers that used to have a local base and a local readership just stopped being metro papers. Right? Yeah. And that's I think they just canceled the Metro section in the book section. And, you know, a bunch of other sections that would have been germane to their readers. Right?

TIM RICHARDSON: So, they didn't cancel the metro section. But when I, you know, when I was there in 2023, the Metro staff had, 70, 75 staff members and reporters and editors. And now I believe it's down to something like 12. And there still is a metro section, but it is significantly smaller. They did remove the sports section, with the exception of four reporters who were staying. And. Yeah, but as you said, the books section is gone. And I mean it really, there were no department, kind of left unscathed. Others, of course, were hit, more than others. But there is a metro section. It is much, much smaller than it than it has been in quite some time. Right.

MATT JORDAN: So you were implying with Bezos and, you know, again, if this wasn't what you're implying, I apologize that there because he has other business in front of the administration that gives them a certain amount of leverage to force him to bring his, you know, reporters to heel, essentially. Right?

TIM RICHARDSON: Oh, I wouldn't say, you know, I don't think that, you know, Bezos is not he certainly made his opinions known within the editorial pages. And you on the opinion side, shifting the focus to, you know, personal liberties and a kind of a more, administration friendly tone and content. So, there's no question about that. I mean, he is he's come out to say that the news pages are still, you know, the news reporters are still doing fantastic work. And so, I don't think that you can read into this, that these changes were made and these reductions were made to reduce, necessarily the amount of criticism against the administration. Because if you look at the reporters who, you know, remain those covering national politics, those covering the White House were kind of disproportionately not affected by the by these decisions. And we still see a ton of great journalism coming out of that newsroom focused on the White House and the administration. So that is still happening. There's a lot of great work that is still happening. But I do think that we've seen that the owner has, you know, kind of shifted his focus, I guess, away from journalism, where he was so supportive for many, many years to his passion of Blue Origin and of course, Amazon and wanting to support those two entities.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah, Amazon, which did have a, a case against it at the, at the Federal Trade Commission for antitrust, that, you know, there have been a series of things that, would make one think about that; the firing of Ann Telnaes as the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, who did a cartoon, showing Bezos paying tribute at the feet of Trump and was promptly let go. Soon thereafter. So, but I guess what I'm getting at is this is, I guess there's subtler forms of coercion than just, you know, stopping the press. And you see that, with what they're doing at a number of places, even regime-friendly papers like The Wall Street Journal. Right. They had… the Trump administration put a slap suit against them. Or maybe it was Trump's, individual lawyer put a slap suit against him. It's become so difficult to tell the difference between the two of them. They threatened to sue them for, writing stories about the Epstein affair. Right? And we see this, also, with ABC, we see it with CBS, where there were lawsuits that were basically had no standing on, facts where that coercion, that leverage was used against these outfits who might have been holding them accountable.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. And I think, you know, one word intimidation. And it's not just the… in many cases, these lawsuits that are filed, I would say that the goal is not necessarily to win. I think Trump knows in many cases he might not come out victorious. Now he has come out with a couple of $16 million settlements. But I think the bigger picture here is intimidation of, you know, trying to ensure trying to influence editorial decisions when he can't actually, you know, doesn't actually have a say in those decisions now. And, you know, of course, he has fund removed funding from outlets where he can. But, you know, let's say, you know, other smaller newsrooms or even, you know, larger newsrooms have reporters who are trying to do the work of holding the administration to account. They're trying to intimidate them and reporters into, you know, making them think twice, really, about the stories that they try to pursue, make them kind of question whether this is the right move. If I, you know, if I report the wrong thing, could, the president come after me? Could he file a lawsuit? And, you know, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and other, you know, of the some of the largest media organizations in the country, they can withstand a lawsuit. They have they have lawyers on staff. They can handle this, and they will be perfectly fine. What is problematic is when smaller outlets or reporter freelance reporters who don't have the backing of a major institution behind them start to think twice about their reporting and what stories they are putting out there and publishing. That chilling effect is a lot of what is behind the actions of the administration. And I'm not, you know, this isn't just the lawsuits that have been filed. It really is a through line for all of the actions that we've seen, it's reducing credible information that's out there to try to try to control the narrative, but it's also trying to have an impact on all reporters across the entire industry to intimidate them and try to make them think twice about their coverage and what, you know, the stories that they're putting out there.

MATT JORDAN: One of the levers that they have at their disposal is the Federal Communications Commission. Right there at the FCC. How have they used the FCC to do some of this coercive work?

TIM RICHARDSON: First of all, you know, the FCC has opened investigations against every network, with the exception of Fox, of course, which is owned by a Trump ally, Rupert Murdoch, although he did sue, you know, of course, Trump did sue Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, but from PBS, NPR, the other three networks have all faced investigations. Some of those investigations, you know, dovetailed the CBS and ABC dovetailed with the lawsuits that Trump had filed. So, we've seen the threatening of broadcast licenses. Of course, the Jimmy Kimmel with, with Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman, saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” You know, speaking on speaking on a right leaning podcasters network. So, we and then we even more recently, the equal time rule has come has made headlines with the FCC opening an investigation into The View. So, we have seen from a regulatory standpoint, and it really is this onslaught against credible information. And you know this, you know, when Brendan Carr was named to the post, Trump called him a warrior for free speech. Similar things have been said about Elon Musk, of course, who had a large role with Doge in the federal government. Earlier in Trump's term. Trump himself has made the claim that he is, a warrior for free speech. And in every case, from the FCC to Elon Musk to the actions of Trump, it is quite the opposite. They are for free speech when it supports their narrative and their version of events, but they are very much opposed to it when what is being said does not align with their narrative.

MATT JORDAN: And I think that is what we are seeing currently with the FCC, much like we're seeing across the administration. There was, JD Vance did a talk, a red meat talk, to some organization. They were talking about universities, which, you know, has become another site for a freedom of expression, is being is being hit. And he one of the talking points that he said was that we must use power ruthlessly. And I do think that there's some degree of ruthlessness to the use of the FCC, especially, right, that any, you know, any company that is coming up for license renewal knows that this is coming their way now, knows that they had best, best play nice or they might not they might not get their license again.

TIM RICHARDSON: Right, exactly. And, you know, a couple of the large companies that that pulled Jimmy Kimmel for example, had business before the FCC. And I think there's the sense that, you know, the Trump himself and Brendan Carr have, you know, they've got their thumb on the scale in a way that we just haven't seen before. I mean, the FCC is typically kind of this, you know, sleepy organization within the federal government or, you know, agency within the federal government that, you know, you hear about occasionally, but it kind of does its work in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way and that just has not been the case over the last 12 months.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. I mean, these the big conglomeration is always bad for freedom of expression, I would argue, because you limit the range of viewpoints out there, you make it more ownership friendly. All these things that we know from years and years of study that this doesn't work very well. And yet this is the thing that or I think over the last quarter century has been eroding the most. Yeah, this case of CBS, I think, is the one that kind of puts all the things that you've just been talking about in in stark relief, the right that they were there. There was a merger potential with Skydance and Paramount merging together, which puts the and this was a Trump friendly oligarch. I think you can say Larry Ellison is a is an oligarch, fifth richest man in the world or something like that. There was, settlement, you know, there was a suit against CBS for, doing something that reporters do all the time. Right. Which is making a slight cut in a in a Kamala Harris interview to make it fit in the half hour of television. Right. Or less six minutes piece. But this kind of set up a cascade of, of, conglomeration effects. Right? CBS, agreed to the settlement without suit, which is, again, fairly new in recent history. Most news orgs would have sued because they had they knew their stuff was reported. Well, they knew they could stand behind it. But in order to get this merger, they settled the suit and they agreed to all kinds of conditions that are chilling, right. The, they agreed to have a bias monitor at CBS news that would report directly to Trump. They agreed to end any DEI practice within the organization. All of these things are, unprecedented, I think, when tied to conglomeration in this way.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. I mean, you're absolutely right. And it follows the kind of follows the pattern that we've seen. And, of course, you know, the Ellison's then installed Barry Weiss from the Free Press, to oversee CBS news and, which, you know, rightfully got many headlines and in and of itself. So, you're right, it is very much a pattern that we've seen where just this plot of politicized, FCC is kind of front and center, and a lot of these decisions that typically, you know, had not played that same sort of role.

MATT JORDAN: And then, the Ellison's just also got TikTok right. So, they now have TikTok. And the other big merger and that is still in the works is the, Warner Brothers, you know, Time Warner, which, Netflix had made a bid. Larry Ellison's boy, made, made a bid as well. Trump seems to be siding with that and trying to block the Netflix bid, which would put even CNN and CBS under the control of the same oligarch friendly, news owner. Right? And this, this becomes, a big problem for a democracy that depends on a kind of range of opinion and experience in order to solve shared problems.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. You know, I think we'll see how that all shakes out. But certainly, that's going to be a problem. You know, that's going to be kind of a process that is going to take quite a bit of time to figure out where that all lands.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. One of the things that has been interesting that the Trump administration did after it, you know, arrested Don Lemon in Georgia Fort was that it started messaging something interesting in relation to press freedom, which was that Don Lemon wasn't a journalist. What do you make of that? And what are the… what is the distinction, do you think that they're trying to set up?

TIM RICHARDSON: Well, you know, I think that the fact that Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were, were arrested for I mean, you know, the reality is that they were doing journalism. Don Lemon said many times on camera that he is only there observing and, you know, committing an act of journalism. As this protest, was taking place. And so, you know, there's no question that he was a journalist. I think that we know that the relationship between Donald Trump and Don Lemon has been fraught for some time. And, you know, Trump has had many negative things about Don Lemon and his former employer, CNN, over the years. And, you know, this was an opportunity. And, you know, this comes after the courts said that there was not enough evidence to bring charges against Don Lemon. And yet, you know what we saw this happen anyway. So, and, you know, also connected to that protest in Saint Paul was the fact that the White House put out the fake image of the Nikima Levy Armstrong with tears running down her face. And, you know, I think that gets in. You know, her skin had been darkened. She, in reality she was arrested during this protest was very kind of calm and composed and then in the White House, it kind of getting back to the disinformation that we were talking about earlier puts the synthetic, you know, this generative AI image out on social media, trying to portray, her as something that she was not doing, much like you mentioned with, with, Don Lemon in the circumstance. So, I think it is another example of the trying to control the narrative in ways that we just haven't seen before, such an elevation. And yeah, we just haven't really seen it, seen particularly, you know, disinformation used in this way. We've seen it's not unusual now to see generative AI, you know, kind of fake images from the White House. But what set that image apart in my mind was just how brazen it was. You couldn't tell just by looking at that photo that it was fake. In the past, when the White House puts up fake images, you can, you know, they're not necessarily trying to pass them off as real. It really is. You can kind of tell they've been faked, but it's kind of, you know, it's to advance a narrative or some sort of policy agenda. But this there is no text that indicates indicated it was fake. Anyone who had just come across that would think it was real. And in that regard, it was it really was another escalation just over the last, you know, month or two that that we've seen from this administration.

MATT JORDAN: Another, escalation, I guess you could call it, or at least a rhetorical lever, I guess maybe you would call it that. They're doing is they're weaponizing the word doxing, right? That this is they're accusing reporters of doxing. What do you make of that?

TIM RICHARDSON: I think one of the you know, we've seen that particular, there is a reporter, Seth Harp, who received a subpoena, from Congress. And so, I think it's another example of showing how this isn't just the White House. This is this has taken over in many facets of the federal government in this case, you know, a congressional, you know, but, you know, I think it all gets back to intimidation. And, you know, there are the legal threats, you know, threats of being drained financially. And then, you know, these, these threats of the subpoena or in some cases, actual subpoenas that are been given to, reporters and, you know, in some cases compelling them to appear before Congress. It's another effort, by the government to try to, you know, wield its power to clamp down on credible information and trying to intimidate them. And it's just another, example, I think, within that playbook.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. I mean, that isn't doxing, though, right? If a reporter reveals the name of somebody in power and lets the public know about it, that's not doxing, right?

TIM RICHARDSON: That is not doxing. Right? I mean, and this, you know, and in so many of these cases, it is public information. You know, they're finding information publicly, which is what journalists do. And, you know, that is the role of a journalists, and it is being weaponized. And I think that can only happen in an environment in which there is low public trust within media. I mean, I wish we would see more of the public stand up and fight back against these sorts of things, but it is something that we are seeing more and more, with and with more and more frequency, which is, I think, frankly, terrifying.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. I mean, it does seem as if they're following the old playbook, you know, which has long been part of political electioneering, which is to run the negatives. Right. Run the negatives up on the opposition. And Steve Bannon famously said that, you know, the Democrats aren't the opposition. They don't matter. What matters is the press. And so, I noticed this during the last year, the Trump administration launched a wall of shame where they were going to put accountability journalists up on it and encourage citizens to rat out journalists who are not regime friendly. I mean, again, this is all unprecedented. And in my lifetime, you know, maybe, maybe you could find examples of this in the 50s or maybe during the first big kind of red scare in the 1920s, which is where I was wondering if that's when America, started up, you know, during the, when the postmaster general took over control of, of and kind of squashed the radical press in the, in the 1920s. But again, these are these are wholly new things that we're seeing. And it speaks to an administration that just does not have a commitment to democracy.

TIM RICHARDSON: Right. And, you know, and it's not just the news media that have been targeted, of course. I mean, that's where my focus is, and, you know, just from a democratic standpoint, is so crucial. But it is not just it's not just the media. We've seen law firms targeted. We've seen institutions of higher education targeted. We've seen cultural institutions targeted, you know, from the Kennedy Center to the Smithsonian Institution. So, this is a long, you know, these tactics that are used on the press, similar tactics are being used across society in an effort to control the narrative. I mean, you know, they don't want you… there's an effort, of course, to control what you can see, like at the Smithsonian Institution, where they're pulling back and changing, you know, the wording of certain exhibits. For example, there are words that are being banned on federal websites. And, you know, all of this is happening at the at the same time in an effort to try to, you know, police what sort of information, Americans and, you know, really everyone is, is exposed to and, you know, it's just an effort to manipulate that flow of information.

MATT JODAN: It does seem like —

TIM RICHARDSON: At the same time, the White House, you know, the White House itself has beefed up its communications staff and, you know, freely admit that in many ways they're trying to bypass the media and, you know, speak to them directly, which is perfectly fine. All administrations. I mean, you know, you know, all administrations make changes, right? I mean, there are certain, you know, words or certain policies of certain policies that that are allowed that are that are not allowed. But what we have seen within the, you know, Trump 2.0 just goes so far beyond what we have seen any other administration do. And that is, you know, that's what makes this so noteworthy and so, so crucial. And such a threat to democracy is because all of these very significant things are happening all, you know, all at the same time. And, and this seems to be no end to it.

MATT JORDAN: You talked earlier about how the administration had defunded and dismantled the global media. US Global Media Agency, the US agency for Global Media is what it's called. And they oversee the allocation of funds to us public broadcasters like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcast Network, Radio and Television [inaudible], Radio Free Asia, what is the impact of all of it in a global sense? What's the impact of these particular, outlets being, silenced or, you know, muted, at least by the administration?

TIM RICHARDSON: So, this has those outlets have been a crucial form of soft power for the United States. You know, for some 80-plus years. And the they have just, you know, systematically been dismantled. Now, it does look like some funding has been restored for them, which is great news. But yes, you know, the staff were dismantled. You know, they were they were booted from the airwaves in these countries that are very fragile, where the United States has long been able to provide credible information under authoritarian regimes. The United States has been you know, we've been the source of information for people who had no other source of credible information. And that almost disappeared entirely. And at the same time, it opens the doors for these authoritarian leaders to be able to, you know, it kind of gives them a green light, right? If they're seeing the United States president crack down on the media in this way, what's to stop them from doing even more than they've done? Or you know, it allows them an entry point to crack down further, and you know, crackdown on dissent. And, you know, I think we've seen more and more of that. And we've seen the doors open for other countries, whether it be Russia, whether it be China, whether it be Iran, to fill that void. So, it's the United States is no longer broadcasting. And, these specific countries, it allows others to fill that void and bring their own narrative to the situation. So, I think there are lots of dangerous aspects, to what we've seen. And I do hope that, you know, there's bipartisan support for bringing this back. And I hope that we see those outlets back up and running and bringing credible information and kind of restoring the soft power that we've had for so many decades.

MATT JORDAN: I hope so, too. Just as, as our listeners kind of, think about what they might be able to do, what should they be aware of? What should they be on the lookout for, and what might they do to help reverse some of these kind of some of the backsliding that we're seeing?

TIM RICHARDSON: I would say, first and foremost, look at the sources of information, where you're getting your information and make sure you're getting credible information and support journalists, support outlets and experts who are doing, the hard work of bringing credible information to the public and don't amplify falsehoods. I think that's another crucial thing. If you come across something on social media, you think it not… might not be accurate. Check to make sure, see if other, you know, credible, sources are reporting that see if you can get other metadata, dates, those sorts of things before you hit send or post, just to make sure you're not amplifying it. Because when you publish something, when you, when you when you post something on social media, you are giving it air. You're amplifying it. And in this very polluted media ecosystem that we are in, everyone has a role in that of policing what you at least can put on your own timeline. So, I would just urge extreme caution for amplifying anything but really support journalism. Donate, you know, to, to nonprofits and others who are doing this hard work because it is such a crucial, moment in history and journalism is under threat from so many different ways, on so many different levels. And so, I think anything that we can do to, support those who are doing that hard work, will go a long way.

MATT JORDAN: Great. Tim Richardson, thank you so much for being with us and sharing some of your wisdom.

TIM RICHARDSON: Thank you so much for having me.

MATT JORDAN: Cory, having missed out on your chance to ask some questions and I missed your wisdom in that part of it. Having listened to it, what are some of the things that come to your ear?

CORY BARKER: You know, I think what I really took away from this episode, having to get to just listen, is that so many of the things you discussed felt like we were on maybe sort of a gradual awareness that things were getting worse in these particular areas for individual journalists, for the industry. And then this second Trump administration has just really, really catalyzed in blinking red lights some of the circumstances in which we're seeing, you know, more direct attacks on journalism as an institution, on individual journalists, the really explicit kind of chilling effects that the industry is feeling and the way that that's kind of connecting to the economic challenges that places like The Washington Post are having placed upon them by their now Trump sympathetic executives right? Even down to something like the weaponizing of doxing in the sense that that is being used as a cudgel to go after journalists who are simply just doing their job. So all of these things that have been in the ether for a very long time, and certainly since the first Trump administration, have just gotten so much more significant in our face as problems that don't have a very clear, easy solution that, you know, if we have a different administration or different people in power, that suddenly all of this is going to be fixed again, right? What did you think? Now having a little time to think about your questions.

MATT JORDAN: I've been, you know, reading the work of Tim and of PEN America. And again, they work in a number of different spaces. They work in the space of kind of the attack on freedom of speech and higher education. They work on the and the book banning that is going on across the country. And the ground of those pieces that I've read are always an awareness of the, the importance of the free press. And so, for years and years, basically everybody who is out there has defended the free press so that that shouldn't be controversial. So, I think one of the things that has surprised me in this whole last year of, you know, where they we took all those anxieties about threats to the freedom of the press and we just materialize them. What surprised me is how even though there's all this groundwork for making and articulating the rationale for why you need a free press, that the press has been so unwilling to make that argument right, that there isn't much of a pushback from journalists, and that could be a symptom of the effect of the chill that this regime has unleashed.

CORY BARKER: Yeah, there's something definitely different in the air, too, about the modes and forms of resistance that we're seeing. And if you compare the first Trump administration to this one, right. And obviously so many things have changed in between those 4 or 5 years. Right. But the way in which journalists have either become less outspoken or there are fewer people working at some of these places to be able to shine a light on some of the things that are happening to them, to the just, you know, the negative effects of the media environment that so many people operate in, right? It's something that gives us a lot of concern on this show. And it's hard not to think about that with all of our guests, but especially after this one.

MATT JORDAN: That's it for this episode of News Over Noise. Our guest was Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America. To learn more, visit news-over-noise-dot-org. I'm Matt Jordan.

CORY BARKER: And I'm Cory Barker.

MATT JORDAN: Until next time, stay well and well informed. News Over Noise is produced by the Penn State Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications and WPSU. This program has been funded by the office of the Executive Vice President and Provost at Penn State and is part of the Penn State News Literacy Initiative.

[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

CORY BARKER: On January 14th, federal agents showed up at the home of Hannah Natanson, a Washington Postjournalist. But instead of providing information, they were there to collect it. They arrived with a search warrant, agents seized phones and electronic devices as part of an investigation that, according to reporting, was aimed at identifying the journalist sources for press freedom advocates. The search crossed a line long treated as fundamental in American journalism; the idea that reporters should be able to protect the people who speak to them. The incident didn't happen in isolation. It came amid months of escalating pressure on news organizations that include political attacks, legal threats, ownership changes and growing concerns about the influence of powerful interests inside major media companies. For many journalists, it's starting to feel like the guardrails that once protected the press are eroding.

MATT JORDAN: To help us make sense of this moment, what it says about the current state of press freedom, we're talking with Tim Richardson. He's the program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America, where he focuses on threats to press freedom and the spread of false information. Before that, Tim spent more than a decade at The Washington Post, including time as a breaking news editor during some of the country's most consequential events, from the protests following the killing of George Floyd to the storming of the US Capitol. We're going to talk with him about The Washington Post journalist, read the broader political climate for journalists and what it means when the institutions meant to protect the free press start to change. Cory wasn't able to take part in this conversation, so I'll be talking to Tim one-on-one. Tim Richardson, welcome to News Over Noise.

TIM RICHARDSON: Thank you for having me.

MATT JORDAN: So, tell me a little bit about or tell us a little bit about PEN America. You know, its history and what it does.

TIM RICHARDSON: Sure. So, PEN America is a 103-year-old nonpartisan nonprofit. And we're focused at the intersection of literature and human rights to support free expression. And I kind of think of it as there's kind of two halves to the organization, really. One really focuses heavily on, you know, authors literary works. The other focuses heavily, and this is where my area is, on free expression. So, specifically, you know, I work on journalism and disinformation. We have teams that work on fighting book bans. We have teams that work toward advocating for higher education and other instances of free expression. But those are really the two kind of main kind of kind of the two main buckets of work, really within the organization.

MATT JORDAN: What was happening 102 years ago to… what was the impetus for the starting of PEN America?

TIM RICHARDSON: That is a great question. I will say PEN America is one of many, many PENs all across the world. So, while PEN America is the largest, it is certainly not the only pen. They are, you know, there are organizations across the world. And so, we are really just one of many in that regard.

MATT JORDAN: Well, you know, the timing is about is correct in a way, insofar as for about a century, I guess that would have been after the around the time of the founding of PEN America. And then and for about a century, America was doing really well with press freedom. Right? We were kind of continuing to be this kind of beacon on a hill. Other democracies would look at us we were compared with and then things started to slide a little bit. And so, over the last bit of time here, the, the Reporters Without Borders has an index of world press freedom. And the United States for the last decade or so has been, sliding, I think in the last count, in the 2005 press index, press Freedom index. We went from 55 to 57. And again, there are variety of reasons for that. But what has been happening into the press in America?

TIM RICHARDSON: So, this has been a long slide, I think, for, you know, a lot of reasons, many of them good. We focused a lot on some of the assaults against the First Amendment, the assault, assaults against the free press that have happened. You know, just over the in recent years and maybe over the past 12 months. But this has not been something, you know, that kind of those assaults on a free press have not just happened. You know, just, over the past year or so, it's a lot of things have happened. And, you know, part of that is, I think the discrediting of, of the news media has been a huge part of that. We've seen that happening for years. Certainly, when Trump took office, during his first term, there was, a significant amount of rhetoric that was targeted at reporters and credible information. We've seen that, continue now. But I do think that in some cases, in some ways that has been effective. I mean, it just that's I think the reality we see, the trust in the news media is now at a historic low. I believe it was pegged at something like 28%, a few months ago. And it's never been lower than that. So, I think that a lot of that also has to do with the fractured media environment. Everyone is kind of, you know, choosing your own adventure. There is confirmation bias of people seeking out information, where they know their ideology and their viewpoints will not be challenged. And in some of those instances, there is, continued discrediting of, you know, you can call it the mainstream media, the legacy media. I like to say, you know, the kind of credible reporters, credible outlets. But there is that demonization and a lot of critical content, focused on, outlets that are providing credible information. And that has just kind of whittled down the trust in the news media over the years. And I think a lot of that is why we are where we are in this moment.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah, a lot of the start of the attack of the on the press, you know, starts around, around the late 60s, you know, with the kind of, attack on the bias of journalists. Right? That was that became a strategy other than, well, other than degrading the trust of the public. What is some of the outcome of divisive rhetoric, like calling reporters enemy of the people and stuff like that?

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah, I mean, we've seen we've seen, right. Reporters, you know, certainly enemy of the people was something that came out a few years ago. But I think what we saw kind of what we've moved from a lot of the rhetoric that we saw, you know, in the first Trump administration to more recently over these past, 12, 13 months, a lot of action. And I think that is really what makes this moment, different. And it is not just the White House. It is much of the entire administration that has, implemented policies, regulation, you know, from the standpoint of the FCC to really harm a free press. And, you know, I mean, you mentioned some of the insults we've seen. The president called reporters piggy, terrible, making critical comments about their appearance, certainly their intelligence. And it's definitely worth noting that the vast majority of these insults have targeted female reporters as well. And, you know, we do continue to see those insults, creep up, along with a lot of the other, you know, it's not just rhetoric, but it's action. And there's lawsuits. And I'm sure we'll talk a lot about a lot more about some of those things that we're seeing. But there are certainly has been a very intense escalation in a lot of these actions, and rhetoric, but also, you know, actions and lawsuits and those sorts of things that have happened over the last several months,

MATT JORDAN: Given the scope of the many patterns around the world, you know, free press associations around the world, how much of this is stuff that others have seen around the world? And what does it usually portend to?

TIM RICHARDSON: I think that's a great question, because a lot of our work in the press freedom space focused overseas, for, you know, several years ago, we weren't doing a lot of press freedom work in the United States. And the way that we are now, because there wasn't really the same need for it. You know, the press is, I think, was more respected. Certainly, the threats to a free press were a fraction of what they were now. But that has changed. A lot of organizations, PEN America included, has focused, significantly, their work on defending a free press in the United States because it is under attack in ways that we've never seen in modern history. So, you know, some of those resources that have been used, and not just PEN, but many organizations, you know, press freedom organizations, have shifted resources back here, back home, for those that are, you know, based domestically to try to advocate for a free press, here in the US. And because it just wasn't something that was necessarily needed in the past.

MATT JORDAN: So, let's get into some of the details of that. You said a second ago that what we're seeing in the last, you know, 12 months or so and maybe some of this kind of started in the first Trump administration is of a, of a different type of, of coercion. And we had little bit of coercion. We might have had some access, you know, kind of denying people access before. But what has changed that has been surprising to you?

TIM RICHARDSON: So there really has been an onslaught of actions targeting a free press. But I think you have to take it, you know, there's a bigger picture here. And that is the really, you know, kind of the targeting of credible information that would allow the administration to insert its narrative and try to dominate that narrative. If you can clamp down on the, on the, you know, credible information that's coming from outlets and journalists whose entire mission is to hold power to account, and you can insert your own narrative that, you know, that gives you more, more power to further your narrative. So, you know, look at the very first weeks in office when the White House, banished the Associated Press from the press pool over content. Really, because the Associated Press refused to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. That is a case that still winding its way through court. We've seen the Pentagon boot out the press corps, you know, outlets that have for decades held, the Pentagon and its leadership to account for its decisions. They were gone because they, you know, they, had to leave essentially because they refused to sign, an agreement with the Pentagon that, in essence, would not have allowed them to do journalism within the walls of the Pentagon. So, the Pentagon is still being held to account by credible reporters, but they're doing it from home, or they're doing it in their newsroom, as opposed to within the Pentagon itself. We've seen the president personally file lawsuits against media organizations over content that he doesn't like. We've seen the defunding of the U.S. agency for Global Media, which Voice of America is the outlet that's maybe what most well-known within that. But there are others, Voice of America and others are Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia. We've seen the defunding of public media, you know, NPR, PBS losing their federal funding. That's a move, of course, that Congress approved but at the request of the president. So, there is a very long line of attacks against the media that we have seen from the beginning of the administration through now. And, of course, more recently, we had the FBI raid against Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson House, which was just unprecedented, we've had two arrests of journalists, Don Lemon and Georgia Fort. So those are, you know, there really has been a very significant escalation. And one of the things that's surprising to me is how I think there is a I think there's a lack of understanding or a lack of awareness. I, you know, from the public as to what exactly is happening from a press freedom standpoint. There was a study that was done earlier in the administration and Trump 2.0, looking at awareness, public awareness of the threats to a free press. And it is, you know, that the percentage of Americans who are aware of what is happening is roughly half, what it was during Trump's first term. That was a study that was done several months ago. It is quite possible that that awareness has increased. I haven't seen any, you know, updated surveys in that regard, but that is something that I have personally found alarming is just that lack of awareness there.

MATT JORDAN: You know, it's very surprising to me that there is a lack of awareness. You would think that an industry that is under attack, that is at least, an attack either through kind of overt ways or subtle coercive ways, and there are many of those that we can talk about as well would, would rally, would circle the wagons, would, everybody would be writing about this. Why do you think that the press has been so silent about the attack on the press?

TIM RICHARDSON: I don't know that the I guess I wouldn't necessarily say the press has been silent about it. I think I just think that there has been a ton of news. There is a constant onslaught of news happening everywhere you look. There's a new headline, that headline lasts a day or two. You know, a news cycle that used to last for a few days. Now it lasts, you know, for a day or even a few hours, of course, depending on the case. So, I think it is just that our attentions, we're being forced to look in so many different directions that it's, it's unless this is something that people understand, understand directs them effectively. Of course, I would argue that it does. But you know, I think for the average American, it's kind of just kind of hard to see how, you know, they think this maybe is something that is affecting journalists as opposed to their personal lives. And meanwhile, you've got ten other headlines that are, that are happening in these other huge stories, and there's never really an end to it. And I think that is a lot of the reason behind it.

MATT JORDAN: Well, I mean, recently we saw, journalist basically being attacked on almost on screen, you know, in terms of because the video was available, we had in Minneapolis, we had six journalists who were attacked by ICE agents, John Abernathy, a photographer for Getty, Whitney Wild for CNN. Jalyssa Dugrot from MintPress News. JT Cestkowski from Status Coup, Jon Farina from Status Coup, KingDemetrius Pendleton from Listen Media. These are people that were attacked basically on screen. And yet the public still is sleeping on this. It seems, odd.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. You know, we've seen these assaults against reporters happening in several places now, of course we saw them, you know, what's happened in Minneapolis in these last few weeks has been awful. And yet it follows what we saw earlier in Chicago, which, you know, follows earlier. You know, what we saw earlier in Los Angeles, we've seen this take place in New York. And so, this has happened all across the country. And we've seen journalists assaulted at the hands of ICE agents. And I think what is also, we also have to remember that some of the governments narratives that have come out of some of these events, and I'm specifically thinking about the shootings of Renée Good and Alex Peretti, how, you know, those are narratives where we're frankly not correct. I mean, there were there were false narratives, from the government. It was disinformation being peddled by the government. And I think that is another, it's forcing journalists to continue to do work reporting on these kinds of difficult stories at the same time, when there's an entire economic crisis around journalism, there are fewer reporters. And, of course, you know, as you mentioned, they're being attacked on American streets. And I think it is it's kind of a perfect, a perfect storm at the same time that the work that they're doing is really, more crucial than, you know, I think, frankly, that we've seen in quite some time as well.

MATT JORDAN: I mean, it is confusing that the press has been so slow to respond with different modes of reporting, right, that, you know, there's a kind of a standard way of reporting government where official source says something that sources quoted. But we've seen like, as you said, with the ICE attacks in Minneapolis, in other words, the administration basically embraced misinformation as a strategy. Absolutely. Putting out these false frames. Do you think that it might behoove people in the press to maybe not so courageously and instead of graphically report everything that the administration says?

TIM RICHARDSON: Well, I wouldn't say they're being stenographers. I don't think that's a correct assessment. I think you have to look very you know, you have to look at the entire information ecosystem, which is a bit of a mess. And it depends on where you're getting your information. I mean, if there are amazing reporters, you know, local reporters based in Minnesota who have done fantastic work on the ground, there are, of course, there are lots of national outlets, who have reporters on the ground, and they're doing great work. So I think you have to look at what your source is, because there is still a ton of fantastic journalism that is out there, incredible reporters, incredible outlets that are doing their best to hold, you know, the government to account, whether it's ICE, you know, lead other, other, federal officials within Minnesota here in Washington. So, I think people need to be careful and cautious about where they're getting their information, because if you're getting your information from the right places, you are getting credible information that is telling you exactly what is happening on the ground. Unfortunately, there are others who, for weather, political reasons or other financial reasons because, you know, maybe that knowing the way that social media algorithms work or they're feeding people lies, frankly, in some cases, or spin, if you want to put it a little bit more diplomatically, but in many cases it is straight up disinformation. So, it just matters where people are getting their information. There is still a ton of great work that is happening on the ground. Right?

MATT JORDAN: Because and that, I guess, goes to another way in which the freedom of the press can be counted, right. It's not just in the sensor of reporters or in the closing of outlets, although that's a lot of important. But there are these subtler methods of coercion that we're also seeing operationalized in many ways. One of those is ownership, right? What's happened in the ownership space over the last quarter century that has made press freedom more problematic?

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah, we certainly have seen a, a lot of consolidation. We've seen, you know, lots of the large newspaper companies, for example. And I think sometimes we maybe falsely use newspaper as a proxy for, for credible information, which I think is a mistake. But there are lots of other great sources of information beyond newspapers that said, you know, we've seen thousands of newspapers closed their doors, we've seen ownership consolidate. We've seen in some cases, billionaire tech owners. The Washington Post, my former employer, comes to mine own, you know, purchase, these assets in some cases, have done a great job. This is not to say that they've all done poorly, because that's not the case, but certainly in the case of Jeff Bezos, just the news that we've seen over the past few days with layoffs, the pulling of a presidential endorsement, the change in the direction of the editorial page. But this also isn't an issue related to newspapers. We've seen it in broadcast, where now there are just a small handful of players that own a large percentage of the affiliate stations across the country. So, we have seen, a significant you know, even if you look at newspapers, for example, you've seen in many, many cases these kind of venture capitalist companies come in and sell the place for parts and in some ways, and reduce the number of, reporters that they have. So, yeah, it is a tough industry. The economics are very challenging right now. There have been some success stories, particularly in the kind of the nonprofit newsroom space. But yeah, the consolidation has only, I think, caused a continued reduction in the number of reporters that we're seeing. And frankly, it's reduced the viewpoints that people have access to. When you have just a small handful of organizations that control, you know, have so much control over, over the information space.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. And in that and the kind of leverage being used to for even those which aren't ideologically aligned with the current administration, they're getting a lot of leverage put in their in their way. Again, if you go back to your former employer, The Washington Post, I think it was the must have been for Super Bowls ago when they put out the Democracy Dies and Darkness commercial. Right? Which was this big glossy thing, which was ominous and the music swelled and whatnot and, and they staked the claim against this type of thing. What happened in Trump two, regime that made, Washington Post do such an about face?

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. It's just been so demoralizing and disheartening to see what's happened. And I just, I have so much respect for my former colleagues who, no longer have jobs and certainly those who are still within the newsroom but are but have seen, you know, our kind of working in a space with so many fewer people. Now, I think that the Jeff Bezos that owned The Washington Post for the first many, many years, he bought it in 2013, I believe, was not the Jeff Bezos, frankly, that we see today. He was a great he was a fantastic owner. He was hands off, you know, never once did he insert his, you know, his will or his opinion into the news pages at all. And I don't believe, you know, I don't work on the opinion side, but I wasn't aware of anything happening there as well. So, he was a great owner. Put, you know, a ton of resources into the product, expanded the newsroom significantly. And then, you know, now we see him at the side of the president, a president who, you know, criticizes and harms, free press at every turn whenever he can. And I think that just Bezos has it. I think he probably has more interest in the company, which is the, you know, the source of his wealth, of course, Amazon and also his passion is Blue Origin, you know, the space company that he owns. And just a few days ago, you know, Pete Hegseth, who kicked out The Washington Post and many other credible news or outlets visited Jeff Bezos and Florida, I believe. And Bezos was singing his praise, talking about how great it was that he was there and that just the side by side of seeing that happening as reporters are being booted from the Pentagon, and, you know, the post is losing a third, probably more than one third of its staff, of course, that coming after a couple of other rounds of buyouts in recent years has just been really, sad to see. And, you know, it's harmful for the post, but, you know, it's harmful for the entire industry that holds power to account. And, you know, it just shows how journalism is struggling. And it's just it's awful news for democracy as a whole, really.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. Like you said, the, the you know, I think what's, what's happened in Washington, you could say that has been happening in cities all over the all over the country, right, where metro papers that used to have a local base and a local readership just stopped being metro papers. Right? Yeah. And that's I think they just canceled the Metro section in the book section. And, you know, a bunch of other sections that would have been germane to their readers. Right?

TIM RICHARDSON: So, they didn't cancel the metro section. But when I, you know, when I was there in 2023, the Metro staff had, 70, 75 staff members and reporters and editors. And now I believe it's down to something like 12. And there still is a metro section, but it is significantly smaller. They did remove the sports section, with the exception of four reporters who were staying. And. Yeah, but as you said, the books section is gone. And I mean it really, there were no department, kind of left unscathed. Others, of course, were hit, more than others. But there is a metro section. It is much, much smaller than it than it has been in quite some time. Right.

MATT JORDAN: So you were implying with Bezos and, you know, again, if this wasn't what you're implying, I apologize that there because he has other business in front of the administration that gives them a certain amount of leverage to force him to bring his, you know, reporters to heel, essentially. Right?

TIM RICHARDSON: Oh, I wouldn't say, you know, I don't think that, you know, Bezos is not he certainly made his opinions known within the editorial pages. And you on the opinion side, shifting the focus to, you know, personal liberties and a kind of a more, administration friendly tone and content. So, there's no question about that. I mean, he is he's come out to say that the news pages are still, you know, the news reporters are still doing fantastic work. And so, I don't think that you can read into this, that these changes were made and these reductions were made to reduce, necessarily the amount of criticism against the administration. Because if you look at the reporters who, you know, remain those covering national politics, those covering the White House were kind of disproportionately not affected by the by these decisions. And we still see a ton of great journalism coming out of that newsroom focused on the White House and the administration. So that is still happening. There's a lot of great work that is still happening. But I do think that we've seen that the owner has, you know, kind of shifted his focus, I guess, away from journalism, where he was so supportive for many, many years to his passion of Blue Origin and of course, Amazon and wanting to support those two entities.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah, Amazon, which did have a, a case against it at the, at the Federal Trade Commission for antitrust, that, you know, there have been a series of things that, would make one think about that; the firing of Ann Telnaes as the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, who did a cartoon, showing Bezos paying tribute at the feet of Trump and was promptly let go. Soon thereafter. So, but I guess what I'm getting at is this is, I guess there's subtler forms of coercion than just, you know, stopping the press. And you see that, with what they're doing at a number of places, even regime-friendly papers like The Wall Street Journal. Right. They had… the Trump administration put a slap suit against them. Or maybe it was Trump's, individual lawyer put a slap suit against him. It's become so difficult to tell the difference between the two of them. They threatened to sue them for, writing stories about the Epstein affair. Right? And we see this, also, with ABC, we see it with CBS, where there were lawsuits that were basically had no standing on, facts where that coercion, that leverage was used against these outfits who might have been holding them accountable.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. And I think, you know, one word intimidation. And it's not just the… in many cases, these lawsuits that are filed, I would say that the goal is not necessarily to win. I think Trump knows in many cases he might not come out victorious. Now he has come out with a couple of $16 million settlements. But I think the bigger picture here is intimidation of, you know, trying to ensure trying to influence editorial decisions when he can't actually, you know, doesn't actually have a say in those decisions now. And, you know, of course, he has fund removed funding from outlets where he can. But, you know, let's say, you know, other smaller newsrooms or even, you know, larger newsrooms have reporters who are trying to do the work of holding the administration to account. They're trying to intimidate them and reporters into, you know, making them think twice, really, about the stories that they try to pursue, make them kind of question whether this is the right move. If I, you know, if I report the wrong thing, could, the president come after me? Could he file a lawsuit? And, you know, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and other, you know, of the some of the largest media organizations in the country, they can withstand a lawsuit. They have they have lawyers on staff. They can handle this, and they will be perfectly fine. What is problematic is when smaller outlets or reporter freelance reporters who don't have the backing of a major institution behind them start to think twice about their reporting and what stories they are putting out there and publishing. That chilling effect is a lot of what is behind the actions of the administration. And I'm not, you know, this isn't just the lawsuits that have been filed. It really is a through line for all of the actions that we've seen, it's reducing credible information that's out there to try to try to control the narrative, but it's also trying to have an impact on all reporters across the entire industry to intimidate them and try to make them think twice about their coverage and what, you know, the stories that they're putting out there.

MATT JORDAN: One of the levers that they have at their disposal is the Federal Communications Commission. Right there at the FCC. How have they used the FCC to do some of this coercive work?

TIM RICHARDSON: First of all, you know, the FCC has opened investigations against every network, with the exception of Fox, of course, which is owned by a Trump ally, Rupert Murdoch, although he did sue, you know, of course, Trump did sue Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, but from PBS, NPR, the other three networks have all faced investigations. Some of those investigations, you know, dovetailed the CBS and ABC dovetailed with the lawsuits that Trump had filed. So, we've seen the threatening of broadcast licenses. Of course, the Jimmy Kimmel with, with Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman, saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” You know, speaking on speaking on a right leaning podcasters network. So, we and then we even more recently, the equal time rule has come has made headlines with the FCC opening an investigation into The View. So, we have seen from a regulatory standpoint, and it really is this onslaught against credible information. And you know this, you know, when Brendan Carr was named to the post, Trump called him a warrior for free speech. Similar things have been said about Elon Musk, of course, who had a large role with Doge in the federal government. Earlier in Trump's term. Trump himself has made the claim that he is, a warrior for free speech. And in every case, from the FCC to Elon Musk to the actions of Trump, it is quite the opposite. They are for free speech when it supports their narrative and their version of events, but they are very much opposed to it when what is being said does not align with their narrative.

MATT JORDAN: And I think that is what we are seeing currently with the FCC, much like we're seeing across the administration. There was, JD Vance did a talk, a red meat talk, to some organization. They were talking about universities, which, you know, has become another site for a freedom of expression, is being is being hit. And he one of the talking points that he said was that we must use power ruthlessly. And I do think that there's some degree of ruthlessness to the use of the FCC, especially, right, that any, you know, any company that is coming up for license renewal knows that this is coming their way now, knows that they had best, best play nice or they might not they might not get their license again.

TIM RICHARDSON: Right, exactly. And, you know, a couple of the large companies that that pulled Jimmy Kimmel for example, had business before the FCC. And I think there's the sense that, you know, the Trump himself and Brendan Carr have, you know, they've got their thumb on the scale in a way that we just haven't seen before. I mean, the FCC is typically kind of this, you know, sleepy organization within the federal government or, you know, agency within the federal government that, you know, you hear about occasionally, but it kind of does its work in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way and that just has not been the case over the last 12 months.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. I mean, these the big conglomeration is always bad for freedom of expression, I would argue, because you limit the range of viewpoints out there, you make it more ownership friendly. All these things that we know from years and years of study that this doesn't work very well. And yet this is the thing that or I think over the last quarter century has been eroding the most. Yeah, this case of CBS, I think, is the one that kind of puts all the things that you've just been talking about in in stark relief, the right that they were there. There was a merger potential with Skydance and Paramount merging together, which puts the and this was a Trump friendly oligarch. I think you can say Larry Ellison is a is an oligarch, fifth richest man in the world or something like that. There was, settlement, you know, there was a suit against CBS for, doing something that reporters do all the time. Right. Which is making a slight cut in a in a Kamala Harris interview to make it fit in the half hour of television. Right. Or less six minutes piece. But this kind of set up a cascade of, of, conglomeration effects. Right? CBS, agreed to the settlement without suit, which is, again, fairly new in recent history. Most news orgs would have sued because they had they knew their stuff was reported. Well, they knew they could stand behind it. But in order to get this merger, they settled the suit and they agreed to all kinds of conditions that are chilling, right. The, they agreed to have a bias monitor at CBS news that would report directly to Trump. They agreed to end any DEI practice within the organization. All of these things are, unprecedented, I think, when tied to conglomeration in this way.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. I mean, you're absolutely right. And it follows the kind of follows the pattern that we've seen. And, of course, you know, the Ellison's then installed Barry Weiss from the Free Press, to oversee CBS news and, which, you know, rightfully got many headlines and in and of itself. So, you're right, it is very much a pattern that we've seen where just this plot of politicized, FCC is kind of front and center, and a lot of these decisions that typically, you know, had not played that same sort of role.

MATT JORDAN: And then, the Ellison's just also got TikTok right. So, they now have TikTok. And the other big merger and that is still in the works is the, Warner Brothers, you know, Time Warner, which, Netflix had made a bid. Larry Ellison's boy, made, made a bid as well. Trump seems to be siding with that and trying to block the Netflix bid, which would put even CNN and CBS under the control of the same oligarch friendly, news owner. Right? And this, this becomes, a big problem for a democracy that depends on a kind of range of opinion and experience in order to solve shared problems.

TIM RICHARDSON: Yeah. You know, I think we'll see how that all shakes out. But certainly, that's going to be a problem. You know, that's going to be kind of a process that is going to take quite a bit of time to figure out where that all lands.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. One of the things that has been interesting that the Trump administration did after it, you know, arrested Don Lemon in Georgia Fort was that it started messaging something interesting in relation to press freedom, which was that Don Lemon wasn't a journalist. What do you make of that? And what are the… what is the distinction, do you think that they're trying to set up?

TIM RICHARDSON: Well, you know, I think that the fact that Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were, were arrested for I mean, you know, the reality is that they were doing journalism. Don Lemon said many times on camera that he is only there observing and, you know, committing an act of journalism. As this protest, was taking place. And so, you know, there's no question that he was a journalist. I think that we know that the relationship between Donald Trump and Don Lemon has been fraught for some time. And, you know, Trump has had many negative things about Don Lemon and his former employer, CNN, over the years. And, you know, this was an opportunity. And, you know, this comes after the courts said that there was not enough evidence to bring charges against Don Lemon. And yet, you know what we saw this happen anyway. So, and, you know, also connected to that protest in Saint Paul was the fact that the White House put out the fake image of the Nikima Levy Armstrong with tears running down her face. And, you know, I think that gets in. You know, her skin had been darkened. She, in reality she was arrested during this protest was very kind of calm and composed and then in the White House, it kind of getting back to the disinformation that we were talking about earlier puts the synthetic, you know, this generative AI image out on social media, trying to portray, her as something that she was not doing, much like you mentioned with, with, Don Lemon in the circumstance. So, I think it is another example of the trying to control the narrative in ways that we just haven't seen before, such an elevation. And yeah, we just haven't really seen it, seen particularly, you know, disinformation used in this way. We've seen it's not unusual now to see generative AI, you know, kind of fake images from the White House. But what set that image apart in my mind was just how brazen it was. You couldn't tell just by looking at that photo that it was fake. In the past, when the White House puts up fake images, you can, you know, they're not necessarily trying to pass them off as real. It really is. You can kind of tell they've been faked, but it's kind of, you know, it's to advance a narrative or some sort of policy agenda. But this there is no text that indicates indicated it was fake. Anyone who had just come across that would think it was real. And in that regard, it was it really was another escalation just over the last, you know, month or two that that we've seen from this administration.

MATT JORDAN: Another, escalation, I guess you could call it, or at least a rhetorical lever, I guess maybe you would call it that. They're doing is they're weaponizing the word doxing, right? That this is they're accusing reporters of doxing. What do you make of that?

TIM RICHARDSON: I think one of the you know, we've seen that particular, there is a reporter, Seth Harp, who received a subpoena, from Congress. And so, I think it's another example of showing how this isn't just the White House. This is this has taken over in many facets of the federal government in this case, you know, a congressional, you know, but, you know, I think it all gets back to intimidation. And, you know, there are the legal threats, you know, threats of being drained financially. And then, you know, these, these threats of the subpoena or in some cases, actual subpoenas that are been given to, reporters and, you know, in some cases compelling them to appear before Congress. It's another effort, by the government to try to, you know, wield its power to clamp down on credible information and trying to intimidate them. And it's just another, example, I think, within that playbook.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. I mean, that isn't doxing, though, right? If a reporter reveals the name of somebody in power and lets the public know about it, that's not doxing, right?

TIM RICHARDSON: That is not doxing. Right? I mean, and this, you know, and in so many of these cases, it is public information. You know, they're finding information publicly, which is what journalists do. And, you know, that is the role of a journalists, and it is being weaponized. And I think that can only happen in an environment in which there is low public trust within media. I mean, I wish we would see more of the public stand up and fight back against these sorts of things, but it is something that we are seeing more and more, with and with more and more frequency, which is, I think, frankly, terrifying.

MATT JORDAN: Yeah. I mean, it does seem as if they're following the old playbook, you know, which has long been part of political electioneering, which is to run the negatives. Right. Run the negatives up on the opposition. And Steve Bannon famously said that, you know, the Democrats aren't the opposition. They don't matter. What matters is the press. And so, I noticed this during the last year, the Trump administration launched a wall of shame where they were going to put accountability journalists up on it and encourage citizens to rat out journalists who are not regime friendly. I mean, again, this is all unprecedented. And in my lifetime, you know, maybe, maybe you could find examples of this in the 50s or maybe during the first big kind of red scare in the 1920s, which is where I was wondering if that's when America, started up, you know, during the, when the postmaster general took over control of, of and kind of squashed the radical press in the, in the 1920s. But again, these are these are wholly new things that we're seeing. And it speaks to an administration that just does not have a commitment to democracy.

TIM RICHARDSON: Right. And, you know, and it's not just the news media that have been targeted, of course. I mean, that's where my focus is, and, you know, just from a democratic standpoint, is so crucial. But it is not just it's not just the media. We've seen law firms targeted. We've seen institutions of higher education targeted. We've seen cultural institutions targeted, you know, from the Kennedy Center to the Smithsonian Institution. So, this is a long, you know, these tactics that are used on the press, similar tactics are being used across society in an effort to control the narrative. I mean, you know, they don't want you… there's an effort, of course, to control what you can see, like at the Smithsonian Institution, where they're pulling back and changing, you know, the wording of certain exhibits. For example, there are words that are being banned on federal websites. And, you know, all of this is happening at the at the same time in an effort to try to, you know, police what sort of information, Americans and, you know, really everyone is, is exposed to and, you know, it's just an effort to manipulate that flow of information.

MATT JODAN: It does seem like —

TIM RICHARDSON: At the same time, the White House, you know, the White House itself has beefed up its communications staff and, you know, freely admit that in many ways they're trying to bypass the media and, you know, speak to them directly, which is perfectly fine. All administrations. I mean, you know, you know, all administrations make changes, right? I mean, there are certain, you know, words or certain policies of certain policies that that are allowed that are that are not allowed. But what we have seen within the, you know, Trump 2.0 just goes so far beyond what we have seen any other administration do. And that is, you know, that's what makes this so noteworthy and so, so crucial. And such a threat to democracy is because all of these very significant things are happening all, you know, all at the same time. And, and this seems to be no end to it.

MATT JORDAN: You talked earlier about how the administration had defunded and dismantled the global media. US Global Media Agency, the US agency for Global Media is what it's called. And they oversee the allocation of funds to us public broadcasters like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcast Network, Radio and Television [inaudible], Radio Free Asia, what is the impact of all of it in a global sense? What's the impact of these particular, outlets being, silenced or, you know, muted, at least by the administration?

TIM RICHARDSON: So, this has those outlets have been a crucial form of soft power for the United States. You know, for some 80-plus years. And the they have just, you know, systematically been dismantled. Now, it does look like some funding has been restored for them, which is great news. But yes, you know, the staff were dismantled. You know, they were they were booted from the airwaves in these countries that are very fragile, where the United States has long been able to provide credible information under authoritarian regimes. The United States has been you know, we've been the source of information for people who had no other source of credible information. And that almost disappeared entirely. And at the same time, it opens the doors for these authoritarian leaders to be able to, you know, it kind of gives them a green light, right? If they're seeing the United States president crack down on the media in this way, what's to stop them from doing even more than they've done? Or you know, it allows them an entry point to crack down further, and you know, crackdown on dissent. And, you know, I think we've seen more and more of that. And we've seen the doors open for other countries, whether it be Russia, whether it be China, whether it be Iran, to fill that void. So, it's the United States is no longer broadcasting. And, these specific countries, it allows others to fill that void and bring their own narrative to the situation. So, I think there are lots of dangerous aspects, to what we've seen. And I do hope that, you know, there's bipartisan support for bringing this back. And I hope that we see those outlets back up and running and bringing credible information and kind of restoring the soft power that we've had for so many decades.

MATT JORDAN: I hope so, too. Just as, as our listeners kind of, think about what they might be able to do, what should they be aware of? What should they be on the lookout for, and what might they do to help reverse some of these kind of some of the backsliding that we're seeing?

TIM RICHARDSON: I would say, first and foremost, look at the sources of information, where you're getting your information and make sure you're getting credible information and support journalists, support outlets and experts who are doing, the hard work of bringing credible information to the public and don't amplify falsehoods. I think that's another crucial thing. If you come across something on social media, you think it not… might not be accurate. Check to make sure, see if other, you know, credible, sources are reporting that see if you can get other metadata, dates, those sorts of things before you hit send or post, just to make sure you're not amplifying it. Because when you publish something, when you, when you when you post something on social media, you are giving it air. You're amplifying it. And in this very polluted media ecosystem that we are in, everyone has a role in that of policing what you at least can put on your own timeline. So, I would just urge extreme caution for amplifying anything but really support journalism. Donate, you know, to, to nonprofits and others who are doing this hard work because it is such a crucial, moment in history and journalism is under threat from so many different ways, on so many different levels. And so, I think anything that we can do to, support those who are doing that hard work, will go a long way.

MATT JORDAN: Great. Tim Richardson, thank you so much for being with us and sharing some of your wisdom.

TIM RICHARDSON: Thank you so much for having me.

MATT JORDAN: Cory, having missed out on your chance to ask some questions and I missed your wisdom in that part of it. Having listened to it, what are some of the things that come to your ear?

CORY BARKER: You know, I think what I really took away from this episode, having to get to just listen, is that so many of the things you discussed felt like we were on maybe sort of a gradual awareness that things were getting worse in these particular areas for individual journalists, for the industry. And then this second Trump administration has just really, really catalyzed in blinking red lights some of the circumstances in which we're seeing, you know, more direct attacks on journalism as an institution, on individual journalists, the really explicit kind of chilling effects that the industry is feeling and the way that that's kind of connecting to the economic challenges that places like The Washington Post are having placed upon them by their now Trump sympathetic executives right? Even down to something like the weaponizing of doxing in the sense that that is being used as a cudgel to go after journalists who are simply just doing their job. So all of these things that have been in the ether for a very long time, and certainly since the first Trump administration, have just gotten so much more significant in our face as problems that don't have a very clear, easy solution that, you know, if we have a different administration or different people in power, that suddenly all of this is going to be fixed again, right? What did you think? Now having a little time to think about your questions.

MATT JORDAN: I've been, you know, reading the work of Tim and of PEN America. And again, they work in a number of different spaces. They work in the space of kind of the attack on freedom of speech and higher education. They work on the and the book banning that is going on across the country. And the ground of those pieces that I've read are always an awareness of the, the importance of the free press. And so, for years and years, basically everybody who is out there has defended the free press so that that shouldn't be controversial. So, I think one of the things that has surprised me in this whole last year of, you know, where they we took all those anxieties about threats to the freedom of the press and we just materialize them. What surprised me is how even though there's all this groundwork for making and articulating the rationale for why you need a free press, that the press has been so unwilling to make that argument right, that there isn't much of a pushback from journalists, and that could be a symptom of the effect of the chill that this regime has unleashed.

CORY BARKER: Yeah, there's something definitely different in the air, too, about the modes and forms of resistance that we're seeing. And if you compare the first Trump administration to this one, right. And obviously so many things have changed in between those 4 or 5 years. Right. But the way in which journalists have either become less outspoken or there are fewer people working at some of these places to be able to shine a light on some of the things that are happening to them, to the just, you know, the negative effects of the media environment that so many people operate in, right? It's something that gives us a lot of concern on this show. And it's hard not to think about that with all of our guests, but especially after this one.

MATT JORDAN: That's it for this episode of News Over Noise. Our guest was Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America. To learn more, visit news-over-noise-dot-org. I'm Matt Jordan.

CORY BARKER: And I'm Cory Barker.

MATT JORDAN: Until next time, stay well and well informed. News Over Noise is produced by the Penn State Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications and WPSU. This program has been funded by the office of the Executive Vice President and Provost at Penn State and is part of the Penn State News Literacy Initiative.

[END OF TRANSCRIPT]