Such a slam dunk even the Ninth Circus could not phuq't'up.
It’s more than a little scary that there is even an opposing view here. Any other ruling would have established “the press” as official state-run media in all but name.
They aren’t now, either. They have “Codes of Ethics,” it’s true - but they claim to be objective.Now claiming to try to be objective is entirely unobjectionable, even laudable if it is sincere. But claiming actually to be objective is sophistry. Why? Because “sophistry” comes from the term “Sophist” - Greek for “wise man.” The Ancient Sophists used claims of their own superior wisdom to suppress debate. Debates are pretty unsatisfactory if they go, “I am wise and you are not. Therefore I am right and you are wrong.” The classical response to this line of “argument” was to claim to love wisdom but to eschew claiming actually to be wise. That’s the source of the term “philosopher” - philo = lover of, sophy = wisdom.
That is, the philosopher’s position was, “Spare me the ad hominem attacks and the arrogance, and let’s get down to the facts and logic as they relate to the issue at hand.” And that is the appropriate response to the journalist’s claim of objectivity, which is intended to suppress your willingness and ability to stand up for the truth when the journalist is lying (whether by commission or by omission).
De facto, a claim of objectivity is no different from a claim of wisdom. Either is sophistry.