Jim Jordan Declares Independence from British Proposal to Gatekeep U.S. News

PICTURED: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). PHOTO CREDIT: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

What happens when another government decides for Americans which news organizations deserve be the gatekeepers of the truth?

That is the question raised by a new proposal from the United Kingdom that would require social media platforms to give preferential treatment to media outlets deemed “trustworthy” by standards set in London. This scheme would elevate some news outlets to the top of users’ feeds while relegating independent journalism to a lower tier.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) did not wait long to fire off a letter to U.K. Secretary of State Lisa Nandy. Chairman Jordan warns that the proposal would create a “tiered information system in which media outlets that are supported and legitimized by the British government are at the top, with all other outlets and independent journalists below them.”

He also argues that requiring platforms to make government-approved outlets “prominent” and “easy to find” amounts to “a form of gatekeeping that stifles independent and smaller outlets.”

For Americans, this debate extends well beyond Britain's borders. The companies affected are overwhelmingly American platforms serving hundreds of millions of American users. Changes made to satisfy London would easily reshape what Americans see online.

Protect The 1st has long warned that government officials should never become the arbiters of which speech deserves amplification. The First Amendment rests on a different principle: let the citizen-reader decide.

History repeatedly demonstrates this wisdom of this approach.

Many of the most important stories of the last several years did not originate with large, establishment news organizations. For example, the New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop was suppressed by major social media platforms in 2020, only to be authenticated over time. Public health skeptics and smaller publications that questioned whether COVID-19 resulted from a laboratory leak were branded as spreaders of “misinformation” before the Biden-era FBI and CIA concluded that a lab leak was a likely explanation for the pandemic.

On the left, Mother Jones revealed in 2015 the dangerous contamination of drinking water in Flint, Michigan, a story long ignored by the mainstream media.

Throughout history, major investigations have often begun with small publications, local reporters, whistleblowers, or journalists working outside the media establishment. Under Britain's proposal, tomorrow’s independent investigative reporter would find it much harder to reach the public simply because he or she lacks a government seal of approval.

Jordan’s letter also highlights another troubling aspect of the proposal.

British officials argue that governments must combat “misinformation and disinformation.” Jordan notes, “European regulators have repeatedly used terms like disinformation and misinformation to exercise greater control over online expression and limit the distribution of politically disfavored speech.” He further warns that the proposal specifically contemplates greater government control over information during “times of social unrest or crisis” – precisely the moments when vigorous public debate is most essential.
​
The solution to bad journalism has never been government-approved journalism. The First Amendment has a superior approach, to trust free people – not governments – to decide whom to believe.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS