Posted on 12/10/2016 6:14:31 AM PST by impetrio1
The Founding Fathers gave the press a First Amendment protection because the media was supposed to be a watchdog of government and made that privilege to keep said government accountable to the people. Journalists were never intended to be friends with the powerful, go to their parties, donate to their campaigns and give off the stench of favoritism. Journalists were never given that First Amendment protection as a shield for lies, lack of industry standards and ethics like the use of anonymous sources, lack of attribution, one-sided accusations without thorough investigation and verification; you know, Journalism 1.01.
(Excerpt) Read more at blackandblondemedia.com ...
this guy doesn’t know much of anything about the history of journalism.
It is a relatively new idea that the press is unbiased. The progressive movements best achievement. Hopefully this will be reversed by recent reporting events.
Thanks for your offer of help, but I prefer to keep the First Amendment unaltered, just as the founders intended it.
All those “unethical journalists” were overcome and soundly humiliated by the new media and the internet. Just let information and ideas flow freely, enough people are actually smart enough to figure out what’s going oin.
So-called “journalists” are NOT a special class of Constitutionally protected citizens. They as a group today masquerade as the fourth estate of checks and balances under the aegis of “the press,” but they are nothing of the sort.
Frankly, they don’t deserve protection; they rightly deserve derision and shunning. IMO, journalists as a group are subversives intent on destroying this country for both personal advancement and ideological reasons (from having been selectively culled from society because of their propensities to be gullible and having no moral compass.)
IMO, the WORST thing a human on this planet beyond being a Muslim is to be a “Journalist.”
And a muslime journalist is lower than whale poop.
EVERYBODY gets “1st Amendment protection” whatever that is.
Start denying to this group or that, and suddenly you have thought crime laws.
Christiane Amanpour is heartbroken at your statement. :0)
So it’s like they’re thinking “if I raise my hands now in support, I’m black too, right?”
Unless they were really on to something. A few were just "removed".
I agree, keep the First Amendment as it is.
There are laws that protect us against unethical journalists. Slander and libel are still crimes.
The best protection against propaganda is education (not indoctrination as in the government-run schools).
They absolutely do deserve protection.
The people (consumers) will decide which succeed or fail and who to believe (each is a business or non-profit that depends on consumers). We punish them as consumers, and the government should not punish them by taking away the 1st. Many customers want fake news - that’s not up to the government to control.
They do police themselves some (pool cameras/reporters, determining credentials, etc) and the government should not interfere with that no matter how bad they seem to do. The gov’t will only be worse at some point in the future if not now. If they allow fake news or exclude real news, the markets (consumers) will react. And for now they may allow fake news since so many consumers want it. Those of us who don’t want fake news need to be smart about our consuming not ask the gov’t to help.
If you want to see “unethical journalism” look at the newspapers Adams and Jefferson funded and the things those two personally did around distribution. Consumers really aren’t in bad shape right now.
Or the first amendment.
He's either bought into, or intends to perpetrate the myth that the press has some constitution "objective reporting" function.
The press has always been advocacy and dishonest, and it was up to the reader to figure out the truth. Now the press is playing this "trust us" game, asserting that they are ethically bound to not mislead the reader. HA! That's the biggest lie (#fakenews) of all.
The boundaries to the 1st amendment freedom of speech and press are defamation, incitement, and state secrets. Other than that, the press can and does lie its ass off.
This is why I love FR. We have the integrity and commitment to ideals that we know will bring truth to light. We don’t need to copy the left’s corruption as this article proposes.
Yes.
We are returning back to the natural state of the media, where everyone knows the press has a viewpoint and advocates for it. Everyone knows the media is partisan, and they acknowledge it.
In 1769, John Adams gleefully wrote in his diary about spending the evening occupied with "a curious employment. Cooking up Paragraphs, Articles, Occurrences etc. -- working the political Engine!" Adams, along with his cousin Sam and a handful of other Boston patriots, were planting false and exaggerated stories meant to undermine royal authority in Massachusetts.
Bingo. But in the past journalism did not claim to be un-biased. They were honest about who they were and acted accordingly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.