Worth repeating and acting upon: “Surely, the would-be authoritarian receives a clear message when the press declares in letters and statements than it “stands with” an organization being singled out for abuse but doesn’t actually choose to stand where the victim is forced to sit.“
Thank you, Mr. Tofel. That's all I can come up with right now! I'm still wrestling with what we should be doing that can be effective, and how to do it. It seems that many, many of us are trying to ring alarm bells--but we are primarily reaching those folks who are already hearing the bells--and who are equally alarmed.
Somehow, I feel we need to get the word to those who don't know--and even to those who don't care. And I agree we need to make noise. This is not blowing over. This is not going away.
Thank you again for your time, diligence and care on behalf of all of us.
🙏 Dick. Your strategies are not only doable, they throw critical light on the end of a tunnel that is getting longer with every day the rank and stagnate.
And journalists and journalism funders should respond equally to attacks on reporters when then come from "progressives" as in this current case in Chicago. --
Could the 40 news organizations that support the AP agree to preface their questions to President Trump and his press secretary this way? "On behalf of the Associated Press, I'd like to ask . . . ?"
In other words, could the press make the AP part of every press conference till a court reinstates the AP?
Although it wasn't worth much, I used social media to press the case for major news outlets to skip the White House briefings in support of AP, and predicted they wouldn't, but not for the reason you propose. I think they just can't stand the idea of being outside that bubble of power even if they're just there to transcribe falsehoods. (As Propublicans know best, news is revealed away from microphones and TV lights.)
Bravo and thank you. Important ideas to put into action immediately
Thank you for the courage and clarity of this analysis. It’s what I needed to read today.
Worth repeating and acting upon: “Surely, the would-be authoritarian receives a clear message when the press declares in letters and statements than it “stands with” an organization being singled out for abuse but doesn’t actually choose to stand where the victim is forced to sit.“
I agree. A stronger and concerted response is now needed.
Really appreciated this column Dick.
Bracing. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Tofel. That's all I can come up with right now! I'm still wrestling with what we should be doing that can be effective, and how to do it. It seems that many, many of us are trying to ring alarm bells--but we are primarily reaching those folks who are already hearing the bells--and who are equally alarmed.
Somehow, I feel we need to get the word to those who don't know--and even to those who don't care. And I agree we need to make noise. This is not blowing over. This is not going away.
Thank you again for your time, diligence and care on behalf of all of us.
🙏 Dick. Your strategies are not only doable, they throw critical light on the end of a tunnel that is getting longer with every day the rank and stagnate.
And journalists and journalism funders should respond equally to attacks on reporters when then come from "progressives" as in this current case in Chicago. --
https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/02/25/aldermans-office-kicks-reporter-out-of-meeting-on-controversial-bar-reopening/
Could the 40 news organizations that support the AP agree to preface their questions to President Trump and his press secretary this way? "On behalf of the Associated Press, I'd like to ask . . . ?"
In other words, could the press make the AP part of every press conference till a court reinstates the AP?
I think you meant 1936. Hitler was dead, and Germany defeated in 1946. Great message, though.
Thanks. No, the quote comes from 1946, after the speaker, as the column says, had been imprisoned for eight years.
Sorry. I misread that.
Richard, this is what I told u when we had lunch
Although it wasn't worth much, I used social media to press the case for major news outlets to skip the White House briefings in support of AP, and predicted they wouldn't, but not for the reason you propose. I think they just can't stand the idea of being outside that bubble of power even if they're just there to transcribe falsehoods. (As Propublicans know best, news is revealed away from microphones and TV lights.)