Posted on 01/16/2017 1:37:44 PM PST by Maceman
I was just watching Shepard Smith interviewing someone from the Wall Street Journal about the possibility that the Trump administration may expand the White House press area to include people from outside the mainstream "Press."
They were essentially in agreement with the idea that "The Press" is a Constitutionally recognized "institution" charged with making sure that the President can be properly questioned on behalf of the public.
They expressed concern that Trump might use the expansion of the press room to avoid answering "tough" questions by the "Professional Press," and instead only take softball questions from those renegade interlopers who might lack the "professional credibility" to make the needed "tough" inquiries.
I know we are going to hear this ridiculous complaint a lot from the media now, and I think we need to put a stop once and for all to the idea that "The Press" has some sort of special Constitutional privilege that allows it particular political access.
The fact is that from a Consitutional perspective, there is no such thing as "The Press" in the sense of being a "professional" elite group whose members are allowed preferential treatment under law.
In the Constitutional sense, “the press” is a technological device for disseminating information. One cannot be a “member” of the press. One can only have ownership of, or access to, a press.
An originalist interpretation of the Constitution would be that any device or vehicle which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset printing, TV, radio, or the Internet.
"Freedom of the press" means that we all have the right to own a press or pay any provider who wishes to sell us access to a device or vehicle through which we citizens can freely publicize our ideas.
In this regard, no CNN or CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of "The Press" than does any blogger, or any Internet user who posts on Facebook or any other website.
"Freedom of the press" applies equally to every citizen seeking to use a technological device to record and publicize his or her opinion.
Even Ben Carson fell for the incorrect idea that "The Press" is some type of special institution in a recent TV interview where he said: “There is only one business in America that is protected by the Constitution, and that is the press. They were supposed to expose and inform the people in a non-partisan way. . . ."
It's time that American citizens reject this ridiculous and dangerous idea that the so-called "Professional Media" are due any special legal deference. The disastrous and destructive state of the current professional elitist MSM is the predictable result of such a crazy, self-serving misinterpretation of a fundamental Constitutional right.
I hope that the Trump administration and its supporters will make this point loudly, clearly and often in responding to leftist MSM complaints about White House policies regarding "Press" access.
That's your first problem. I can't see why the drama queen is still on FNC.
Get the MSM out of the White House!
Why would you want your story told by people who want to destroy you? Why would you want your messaging to be twisted through a dishonest filter to make you look bad? That would be stupid.
Find ways to talk to the American people directly: twitter, youtube, White House blog, interviews by the president and white house staff directly with the news channels, etc.
.
“They expressed concern that Trump might use the expansion of the press room to avoid answering “tough” questions by the “Professional Press,” and instead only take softball questions from those renegade interlopers who might lack the “professional credibility” to make the needed “tough” inquiries.”
These hypocrites don’t see the mega-irony in uttering such imbecilic BS...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me "the press" is a generic term meaning anyone that publishes information/news outside of a book or magazine.
Which, IMO, would include Drudge, Breitbart and FR.
It goes back to Kennedy’s day, when they labelled themselves the ‘Fourth Estate’.
They honestly think they are a part of the government, The Press, then the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
I list them in this order, because (lets be honest) that’s how they see themselves. None of our government officials are ok on their own. It takes the press to legitimize them (in their own minds).
I think you’re exactly right. I appreciate you raising the issue as clearly as you did.
THe “free press” is that they can essentially write whatever they want without being jailed or executed for it.
They are not exempt from liable.
As a business entity they are afforded no protections under the constitution.
This stuff is getting out of hand.
I live in a very small, very old New England town. We have a town seal which includes a primitive plow and also an icon representing the Bible. We’ve had this for a long, long time.
Just recently this became a huge — HUGE — issue because (as we all know /s) The US Constitution mandates a Wall Separating Church and State. Therefore ... the town seal simply CANNOT have an icon representing the Bible.
People are claiming that our town seal is a symbol of hatred and oppression.
The Left has zero understanding of what the First Amendment is all about. They are willfully stupid.
It would be delightful to see other reporters allowed to ask questions.
450 reporters there, and each time we get questions only from the main stream media?
I say no! Have them draw lots.
Good job.
I think we need to quit calling them MSM and use a more accurate term, “Propaganda Media”. Of course, perhaps we could refer to them as Propaganda Stream Media, PMS.
Good post. Nobody ever said the press had to be unbiased either. Trump wants to level the playing field.
“Seems to me “the press” is a generic term meaning anyone that publishes information/news outside of a book or magazine.”
I see nothing that excludes books or magazines. They are press too. Arguably important ones.
It seems quite obvious to me that the Constitutionally identified “Press” are printing presses and implied the folks that operate them and distribute the product.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/665.html
United States Supreme Court
BRANZBURG v. HAYES, (1972)
No. 70-85
Argued: February 23, 1972 Decided: June 29, 1972
Byron White: “Freedom of the press is a ‘fundamental personal right’ which ‘is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. … The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.’ … The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists.”
I think we need to be clear that the Press has the right to be able to reasonably publish information without fear of having their property confiscated, their publications censored, or their reporters/editors/employees prosecuted/imprisoned for wbatever reasonable journalism work they do. I use the term “reasonable” to specify that there are some types of journalism activity that definitely should be forbidden (such as giving away the names of deep undercover operatives behind enemy lines) but that most information/opinions should be freely expressible.
However “freedom of press” does not mean “freedom of access to government officials”. If a government official chooses to not talk to reporters and/or broadcasters then that’s their right. Nevertheless such officials usually do and try to be transparent due to laws such as FOIA, laws governing subpoenas & testifying before Congress/courts, and the proven importance that Presidential approval ratings have had on a President being able to get their agenda passed through Congress.
Any given press/media institution/program only has as much power as the elected/appointed politicians think that this press/media has in swaying opinions of likely voters in battleground races. If you want to enhance (or destroy) the ability of a particular press/media choice to have/maintain access then you just need to work to influence their reputation on swaying opinions.
How we can best do this is by proactively advertising & asserting ourselves (especially when we think nobody is looking) on being completely honest, fair, and fact-using when it comes to journalism/news/science/everything.
I want Tyler Durden in the front row.
"Freedom of the press" means that we all have the right to own a press or pay any provider who wishes to sell us access to a device or vehicle through which we citizens can freely publicize our ideas.Freedom of the press is the inalienable right of the people to spend their own money propagate their own ideas.
An originalist interpretation of the Constitution would be that any device or vehicle which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset printing, TV, radio, or the Internet.This provision makes clear that although the framers had no experience of electrical/electronic “media” of communication, the Constitution contemplates such advances in principle. The First Amendment references the only technical means of communication then extant but does not exclude future advances. And as
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
makes plain, the First Amendment is to be understood only as a floor under our rights. Not, in any sense, a ceiling above them.
- Amendment 9:
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Webster’s Dictionary, dated 1828
PRESS:
The art or business of printing and publishing. A free press is a great blessing to a free people; a licentious press is a curse to society.
Liberty of the press in civil policy, is the free right of publishing books, pamphlets or papers without previous restraint; or the unrestrained right which every citizen enjoys of publishing his thoughts and opinions, subject only to punishment for publishing what is pernicious to morals or to the peace of the state.
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.