“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
—First Amendment to the Constitution (1791)
According to Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press report for 2016, press freedom worldwide has declined to its lowest point in 15 years. According to the report, only 13% of the world’s population enjoys a free press. From the heinous attack on Charlie Hebdo to state-sponsored censorship in China to violence committed against journalists covering organized crime in Mexico, it’s clear that journalists are increasingly hindered around the globe. Lest we become complacent, it is important to note that the U.S. only ranks at number 41.
Against that backdrop, it’s especially concerning when Donald Trump says that “70 to 75% of it (media) is absolutely dishonest, absolute scum.” And, he hasn’t stopped there. He mocked a disabled reporter. And, when a reporter asked him a tough question about the alleged funds he raised for veterans’ groups, Trump’s response was to call him “a sleaze.” It would be one thing if this was just bluster. But, Trump has advocated for the re-opening of libel laws so “we can sue (news organizations) and win lots of money.”
To understand what Trump wants to do, you only have to look across the Atlantic at the British libel laws. In order to bring a libel suit in the U.S., a person must prove that the published work was false. However, in the U.K., the onus is on journalists and reporters to prove their claims are true in court, which costs substantial time and money. This creates a chilling effect on reporting and free speech especially with regard to rich and powerful people or organizations.
In 2014, Cambridge University Press said it wouldn’t release a book critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the U.K. because it feared being sued. John Haslam, Executive Publisher at Cambridge University Press noted in a letter to the author that “the disruption and expense would be more than we could afford, given our charitable and academic mission.” More recently, HBO declined to release Going Clear—a documentary about the Church of Scientology—in Britain because of the high costs associated with defending against a libel suit. There are also cases of whistleblowers like Peter Wilmshurst being taken to court by a pharmaceutical company. Wilmshurst, a cardiologist, took issue with the science supporting a specific cardiac drug. When he proposed to publish data from his experiments, he was sued for libel in an attempt to repress his findings. He successfully defended against the suit, but only after years in court and much cost to him.
Trump hasn’t offered any specifics about his plan to amend libel laws here in the U.S., but his stated goal of being able to “sue and win lots of money” suggests that he would go at least as far as Britain’s laws. And, to be fair, Trump isn’t the only one working to undermine press freedoms. The rich and powerful often want less criticism of their actions. For these reasons, the Founding Fathers made the First Amendment clear: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This fundamental and important boundary for government is essential to the free flow of ideas and leads to an informed public.
In 1804, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter that “Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him (man) all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”
Nelson Mandela echoed these sentiments in 1994: “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy. The press must be free from state interference. It must have the economic strength to stand up to the blandishments of government officials. It must have sufficient independence from vested interests to be bold and inquiring without fear or favour. It must enjoy the protection of the constitution, so that it can protect our rights as citizens.”
America should strive to serve as an example of freedom and democracy. We should resist efforts to rein in the press by politicians who are either thin-skinned or trying to hide something. We should support the work of media organizations to shine a light on uncomfortable truths. We should applaud journalists who hold people in power accountable—not make it easier for wealthy individuals, government institutions, corporations and elected officials to silence their critics. Without a strong and independent press, we are less likely to hear opposite points of view—already a problem in American politics. We are more susceptible to demagogues, who feed on false information and half-truths. Without a free and vibrant press, the quality of our public debate will diminish, our political leaders will run unchecked and our democracy will suffer.
This generation suffers from the crushing pressure of information overload. Consumers trust premium publishers to help them cut through the white noise and present information and media that are worth spending their limited attention on. As the information deluge continues to swell over time this trust will become even more valuable.
Publishers must make sure that the technological solutions they employ to serve ads on the blocked web also solve the speed, privacy, and UX issues that caused ad blocking in the first place.
Dr. Johnny Ryan is Head of Ecosystem for 
If there’s any good news for publishers here, it’s that people tend to use ad blockers much less on mobile devices, at least for now, with just over 5% in 2015, close to 8% this year and usage expected to climb to 11% of mobile users by 2017. But as marketers beef up their mobile advertising, chances are these devices will eventually catch up with desktop and laptop computer market.
One answer the New York Times has found is circumventing the traditional digital advertising experience by employing branded content. 
Instead of “punishing readers,” Stern says Slate is working hard to convince those with ad blockers to move to the site’s premium ad-free service Slate Plus. They also prompt those that aren’t willing to ante up for a premium experience to disable their ad blockers on the site—and point out the steps the site is taking to improve their experience, while providing the articles they are there to read.
The researchers found that blog posts and videos/podcasts are the second and third most effective types of content. Now, those are storytelling devices! Take, for instance, Frank and the Tower, a short film by REI that tells the story of Franks Sanders, a rock climbing guide who has ascended Devil’s Tower thousands of times over his long career. Sanders is a character in his own right. But for someone like me, who not only recently took up indoor rock climbing, but who also stood at the base of Devil’s Tower as a kid with binoculars in hand, the film really struck a chord. Who knows? Maybe one of the people I saw climbing the tower through my binoculars was Sanders. I think about this video all the time, especially when I’m thinking about which store I’m going to in order to buy more chalk for climbing.
