I was honored to be included in an online roundtable late last month along with leading journalists and media experts from around the world.
The high-level discussion centered around growing global concerns over press freedom.
The conversation was hosted by the Center for News, Technology & Innovation and the George W. Bush Center at SMU.
The event, themed “Be Prudent, Be Deliberative, Be Prepared,” brought together local U.S. reporters and international press representatives to examine mounting threats to independent journalism.
Speakers highlighted a troubling “authoritarian playbook” used by governments to undermine free media, drawing parallels between tactics seen abroad and emerging pressures here at home.
Participants described how media outlets face not only traditional forms of repression, but also legal and economic measures designed to silence critical reporting.
Examples shared included strategies used in Guatemala and across Latin America — from withholding government advertising to leveraging civil lawsuits and criminal charges against news organizations.
Journalists from Africa and Europe also recounted long-term patterns of suppression that, they warned, are increasingly mirroring trends in established democracies.
U.S. journalists expressed alarm that familiar constitutional protections are being tested by new forms of information control and that public understanding of press freedom’s role in democracy has eroded.
We discussed how recent arrests of reporters covering protests underscore how quickly these issues can surface even in countries with long press traditions.
The meeting was aimed to foster solidarity, share strategies and emphasize the need for resilience and preparedness as media landscapes shift worldwide.
Like I said, I was honored to be invited and to lend a community journalism perspective.
Though this was an international audience discussing grandiose threats to press freedom, it quickly became evident that—no matter the size of the market or the audience— threats to press freedom abound. And sometimes they are subtle.
The smallest community newspapers have seen threats to press freedom. I deal with many of them in my day job at the University.
Recently, a community newspaper editor in Texas contacted us with quite a story.
Apparently, their local city manager did not like a front-page story, so he attempted to buy every copy off every store rack before folks could read it.
He owned up to his actions and did not apologize for them.
The newspaper had several hundred extra copies at the office.
They replaced what had been removed and had a great week of rack sales.
Another publisher told us, recently, that a school board president threatened a libel suit over a column that hadn’t even been published yet.
The official was just so sure of what the newspaper would publish— he wanted to get out ahead of it and suppress it.
The publisher did not back down.
Last month, the Hood County Republican Party refused to give contact information for their primary candidates to the newspaper there.
They cited an attorney general opinion stating that county political parties are private entities and therefore not susceptible to the open records laws.
It is a bogus opinion, but no one has challenged it yet.
We’ve seen this pressure at universities too.
A fellow student newspaper adviser sounded off in a message board recently about a sports information director who asked that a story be pulled before it printed.
The University did not want negative press about a coach.
The student newspaper did not abide.
Another student newspaper adviser friend recently got a request from their school’s English department for prior review of a student’s story before publishing.
The story in question should not be controversial. It was a book review about a novel assigned in class.
The student was fired up. She loved the book and was excited to write about it.
The work dealt with crimes against women on Native American Reservations.
The department head was afraid the student would use the word “indigenous.” And why wouldn’t she?
They were afraid such a word would be flagged and reflect poorly upon the department.
You know— because DEI is bad and “indigenous” could be flagged as a loaded term.
The adviser, rightly, declined prior review.
This is where we are in our public discourse, and these are conversations publishers should be prepared for.
We encourage publishers to cultivate those relationships with local officials and to know the laws.
But readers like you can play a role in protecting press freedoms.
Readers of community newspapers play a vital role in protecting press freedom by subscribing, donating and supporting local outlets like National Newspaper Association that advocate for independent journalism.
By engaging with stories, attending public meetings and holding local officials accountable, you reinforce the importance of transparent reporting in their communities.
When readers speak out against censorship, they help ensure that local journalists can continue reporting without fear or interference.
Protecting the free press starts at home and we all have a role to play. Thank you for doing your part.
Source: Freepik.com