Media Censorship and Disinformation Concerns Highlighted in The Pacifican Report

In a concerning trend that has escalated in recent months, the current administration has taken increasingly aggressive measures that critics say threaten press freedom and free speech. What began as rhetoric has evolved into systematic efforts to control media access and shape public narratives, raising alarm among journalists, constitutional scholars, and civil liberties advocates.

The administration recently signed an executive order called “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” Despite its name, critics argue the order’s implementation reveals intentions at odds with its stated purpose. Actions following the order suggest the administration may be more interested in controlling which speech reaches the public rather than protecting diverse viewpoints.

A pivotal case highlighting these tensions emerged when the Associated Press was barred from White House events earlier this year. The dispute began when AP journalists continued using the term “Gulf of Mexico” after the administration pushed to rename it the “Gulf of America.” While the AP initially won its case in a U.S. District Court, the victory was short-lived. The D.C. Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in favor of the administration, stating that the previous ruling infringed on the president’s “independence and control over his private workspaces.”

This ruling sent shockwaves through media organizations, with First Amendment experts calling it a direct challenge to constitutional protections for the press. Media access restrictions have historically been viewed as incompatible with democratic principles that rely on informed citizens and transparent governance.

“How can we trust the government to be transparent if it excludes reporters from covering objective events?” asked one media ethics professor who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The practice of labeling unfavorable coverage as ‘fake news’ creates a dangerous precedent where citizens may question all sources, leaving them vulnerable to accepting only government-approved information.”

Further concerns have arisen from Presidential Memorandum NPSM-7, titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” The memorandum, created in response to political violence including the assassination of Charlie Kirk and attacks on ICE officers, has drawn criticism for its broad language that some legal experts say could be weaponized against political opponents.

The order contains provisions targeting what it describes as “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” – terminology that civil liberties groups warn could be interpreted to include legitimate political dissent. Constitutional law experts note that the deliberately vague definition of “political violence” could potentially threaten civil liberties by expanding government authority to surveil or suppress certain groups.

The administration has also embraced artificial intelligence as a communication tool, raising additional concerns about information integrity. According to PBS reporting, the White House social media team regularly uses AI-generated content when engaging with supporters. While officials describe these as lighthearted posts meant to increase engagement, media literacy experts warn that normalizing altered images, even as jokes, erodes public trust in government communications and sets a troubling precedent.

“If AI becomes the primary medium through which news is shared, misinformation will continue to spread and trust in media will crumble,” said a digital media researcher at a major university.

Perhaps most alarming to civil liberties advocates was the government’s response to the Border Patrol killing of Alex Pretti, an American citizen. Despite video evidence and eyewitness accounts contradicting official statements, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed Pretti approached officers with a “9-millimeter semi-automatic handgun” and “reacted violently” when officers attempted to disarm him.

Multiple video angles and witness testimonies paint a significantly different picture, suggesting Pretti was attempting to defend a woman being harassed by officers when he was shot. Critics say the discrepancy between video evidence and official accounts represents a dangerous attempt to control the narrative around a controversial use of force.

Media literacy experts emphasize that citizens must remain vigilant in this environment. “Information and media literacy has never been more important,” said one educator who specializes in digital citizenship. “Having the skill to critically evaluate sources and engage thoughtfully with information is crucial for identifying misleading content, regardless of its source.”

While the administration defends its actions as necessary for national security and proper governance, constitutional scholars warn that these patterns mirror tactics used by governments that have gradually eroded press freedoms elsewhere in the world.