Press Freedoms Under Fire: Watergate to 2026
A crisis of community confidence has emerged. Gallup surveys have documented a serious decline in Americans’ confidence in mass media.
by Cindy Morgan-Olson
More years ago than I care to count, I wrote a college journalism paper titled “Press Freedoms Under Fire.” James Aronson, the professor I wrote it for, was the founder of an early left-wing publication called The National Guardian. That publication sat at the front of the infamous Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spy trial, and my professor had a front row seat to proceedings such as these that shaped his political views and our classroom discourse about the press and government influence.
At the same time as my journalism studies, America faced one of its most consequential scandals. As the scandal known as Watergate unfolded, newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times encountered intense pressure as they pursued stories that many in power sought to suppress. Aronson provided a great deal of insight to us fledgling journalists during that time, including a few anecdotes about a young lawyer named Nixon.
Looking back, the conflict over press freedom may have changed over time, but the main conflict persists. Despite changes in players, technology, and the media sphere, the battle between regulating information and exposing truth endures.
Let’s take a look back at the seventies. At the time, the Nixon administration viewed much of the national press with suspicion and hostility. Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post faced numerous threats to discredit their reporting as they found evidence connecting the White House to the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. What at first seemed like a minor burglary eventually exposed a pattern of abuses of power that culminated in President Richard Nixon’s resignation in August 1974.
Press freedom reached another milestone even before the Watergate era. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States, a case popularly known as the Pentagon Papers. The court concluded that without an overwhelming national security justification, the government could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing classified documents. With this decision, the justices established the importance of a free press in checking government power and set a powerful example for journalistic independence.
Journalists in the seventies operated in a media environment characterized by a relatively small number of trusted national news organizations. Most Americans received their news from major newspapers and three dominant television networks. There was broad agreement on basic facts, even when citizens disagreed on political conclusions. Since the public generally trusted the institutions that delivered the news, investigative reporting often had a profound impact on public opinion.
Get Cindy Morgan-Olson’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Today, you certainly wouldn’t recognize the media landscape we were taught to embrace those many years ago. Information today moves through countless digital channels, including cable networks, podcasts, streaming services, websites, and social media. We never imagined those resources or the power they could wield back then. This explosion of sources has expanded communication, allowing more voices than ever to participate in public debate. Yet, journalism and citizens now face new challenges.
Today’s journalists face pressures that go beyond government officials. Journalists and commentators increasingly face professional, legal, and economic consequences when their views clash with powerful interests. Some lawsuits against media organizations raise worries among press freedom advocates, who fear they will chill investigative reporting. Public campaigns on social media can quickly damage reputations and careers, regardless of whether accusations are proven true.
Another important difference between the two eras is the role of entertainers and cultural figures in political commentary. During the Watergate years, political satire certainly existed, but comedians were not generally viewed as primary sources of political information. There were a few strong voices, such as Lenny Bruce, who largely advocated for free speech and kept things interesting. Folksingers like Pete Seeger also spoke out, or sang out, their opinions with gusto.
Today, late-night talk show hosts, podcasters, social media personalities, and comedians reach audiences that rival or exceed many traditional news outlets. As a result, they have often become targets of political pressure or judicial challenges when their monologues touch on controversial issues. The recent attacks on late-night hosts such as Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel are powerful examples of those pressured to tone down their commentaries.
As a result, a crisis of community confidence has emerged. Gallup surveys have documented a serious decline in Americans’ confidence in mass media. Some attribute this to several factors, including political bias, sensationalism, misinformation, or changing business models. No matter the reason, large segments of the public now question the credibility of institutions that once enjoyed broad confidence. Where is our version of Walter Cronkite now that we need him?
Journalism has also been transformed by technology, and that will only get worse as AI invades content creation. Thousands of newsroom jobs were eliminated as the advertising revenue model shifted to digital media. Local newspapers closed or drastically reduced their reportorial staff. Investigative journalism, which requires considerable time and resources, is often considered unprofitable. While digital media has expanded access to information, it has also weakened traditionally funded in-depth reporting.
The similarities between today’s press scandals and the Watergate era are striking. In both periods, powerful interests sought to mold public accounts and challenge the credibility of critics. Journalists in each era encountered personal and professional risks when pursuing controversial stories. Most importantly, both periods forced Americans to confront a key question: Can a free press remain truly independent when political, economic, and cultural pressures increasingly influence information?
There is, however, one important contrast between the Watergate era and the present. During Watergate, the challenge was uncovering facts that those in power sought to conceal. In 2026, the challenge is often deciding which facts to trust in a flood of information. The problem is no longer access to information. Now, it is credibility, verification, and public faith.
The lessons of the Watergate era remain viable more than half a century later. Democracy does not depend on righteous journalists or vaunted institutions; at its core, democracy is defined by independent voices willing to ask difficult questions and hold the powerful accountable. Aronson and his team, whether you agreed with his politics or not, had their hearts and souls in the right place.
It doesn’t matter if the pressure on the media emanates from government officials, corporations, activists, or cultural movements. The principle remains unchanged. A society that discourages honest reporting weakens one of its most important safeguards and its role as watchdog.
Looking back to the concerns I expressed in Press Freedoms Under Fire so many years ago, I find that the debate has not ended. It has simply entered a new, more complex and potentially dangerous chapter.
