Replies

I would certainly hope our personal information is being kept in a very secure location. If that information got hacked, it could be very ugly, in the larger context of a full scale attack on the First Amendment by Obama’s thugs.

Protection devoutly to be wished - but frankly, it took me awhile to decide to FReep because I thought so little of Clinton's respect for the law, and my appreciation of the difficulty of keeping identity information secret. I have no illusions that I cannot be traced, any more than Buckhead could remain anonymous.
Someone has said, "Free speech isn't free." Pray for the Robinsons, because they are the ones whose freedom of the press is at issue. With our post submittals we are mere contributors; they actually do the publishing.
Actually the First Amendment, in a way, is used by our opposition to confuse the issue of freedom of the press. Associated Press journalism, which calls itself "the press" and calls its employees "objective journalists," did not exist before the advent of the Associated Press in 1848 - which was enabled by the development of the telegraph and the Morse Code long after the composition and ratification of the First Amendment. Newspapers of the founding era lacked sources which were inaccessible to the general public, and so were usually weeklies rather than dailies since scoops were not crucial to their business.
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which were agreed to as a condition for the ratification of the Constitution as a whole. They exist as amendments rather than existing in the body of the document, not because the framers of the original document opposed the freedoms they specify but because they feared that the existence of an explicit "bill of rights" would ironically be used to denigrate rights which the "bill of rights" failed to articulate. Justices of the Supreme Court, including "liberal" ones, have recognized this, and understood that the First Amendment is a lower bound and not a limit to our rights to communicate. And that is how Associated Press Journalism, Obama, and the Democratic Party intend to euchre us out of our right to communicate with the public via this web site, and to do likewise to Rush Limbaugh et al and their rights to broadcast their political opinions.
The Constitution including the First Amendment plainly did not, and could not possibly have, include any mandate for the specific development of telegraphy - let alone the telephone, the radio, the TV, the Xerox copier, the computer with printer, cable TV, or the internet. But what the Constitution does explicitly do is to provide for incentive "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," (Article 1 Section 8). There can be no implication that the intention of the framers of the First Amendment intended to limit freedom of political advocacy to in-person speech and ink-on-paper printing - and certainly not to limit freedom of the press to members of an organization, The Associated Press, which did not even exist until two generations after the ratification of the First Amendment. of the framers of the Constitution.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2131682/posts?page=96

Of course, this was also predicated on the ideal of “objectivity,” which none of us have (least of all myself).

I have been unable to put my finger on the exact distinction to be made between a claim of "objectivity" and a claim of wisdom. And of course if you research "wisdom" in the etymological dictionary, you find the meanings of the terms "sophist" and "philosopher" are relevant, as follows:
sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.

philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
Which is my explanation of the fact that the person who claims to be most objective always seems to be farthest from it.
It seems to me that the Associated Press motivates and enables a mutual admiration society among journalists which makes it taboo for one journalist to question the "objectivity" - whatever that word is supposed to mean - of another journalist. It seems to me as well that journalism as we know it systematically corrupts the language, changing or inverting the meaning of words and instituting new and deceptive words.
In the 1920s journalism (or somebody - and who else but journalism was in a position to do it?) inverted the meaning of "liberalism" from opposition to increased government regulation and high taxes to advocacy of those very things. "Liberals" (actually socialists) systematically use euphenisms for government such as "public" or "society." A "public" school is actually a government school, and when a "liberal" says that "society" should do some thing s/he means nothing other than that the government should do it. And yet society and government are not the same unless there is (or unless there should be) no such thing as individual freedom. When "liberals" use euphemisms for government, AP journalism is never slow to adopt the usages "liberals" prefer.
Associated Press journalism calls itself "the press," insinuating that "the freedom of . . . the press" mandated by the First Amendment confers privileges on Associated Press journalism exclusively and does not refer to the right of the people to spend their own money for the use of technology to promote their own opinions.
AP journalism created "Swift Boating" and "McCarthyism," two words which connote the same thing. Both connote AP journalism's preferred image that criticism of Democrats (at least, criticism from the right) is illegitimate. Each word seemingly denotes an objective reality, but one which cannot bear close scrutiny. But as long as AP journalism controls the debate the fact that the words are double smears - smears of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or of Senator Joseph McCarthy, as well as whoever is tarred with association with the image which AP journalism has created of McCarthy and of the SBVT- is not allowed into the conversation.
And did you know that the Associated Press was aggressively monopolistic from its inception, and that in 1945 it was held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144116/posts?page=15#15

Despite it being a left leaning paper.

I do not rejoice any newspaper disappearing.

I have to agree. My concern is that freedom of the "press" may not automatically extend to electronic media. Especially if the "fairness doctrine" gets reinstated. Has the supreme court ever ruled that electronic media is guaranteed the same protections as print media?
The fallacy in that argument lies in the planted assumption that newspapers are free and independent. In truth, journalism is a singular noun. Journalism as we know it is a mid-Nineteenth Century development, a product of the development of the telegraph and of the Associated Press, which has been a monopolistic organization from its inception (and which was held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945).
That is the explanation for the transformation of the fiercely independent, openly political newspapers of the founding era (and into the middle of the Nineteenth Century) into the self-described "objective press" of today. That homogenization of reporting was the natural result of the acquisition by the newspapers of a (single) source of news which is not available to the general public except by reading the newspaper. The business model of journalism as we know it hinges on the perception that all those AP news stories are reliable and balanced, not hokum or propaganda. Thus, "all reporters are objective." That is a statement to which only a homogenized - not independent and therefore not free - press could subscribe, and to which the Associated Press and its membership must, of business necessity, subscribe.
The death of the "Fairness" Doctrine enabled the revival of a free press - in the form of talk radio. Don't be deceived by claims of "scarcity of bandwidth" or "monopolization of talk radio by the right." Or by claims that "the press" includes only ink-on-paper communication.
The Antifederalists who demanded a bill of rights in the Constitution were opposed by the Federalists, not because they opposed the rights in the first ten amendments but because they held that a bill of rights would not be exhaustive of the rights already implied in the Constitution and they feared that any rights not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be denigrated - that the Bill would become a ceiling rather than a floor on the rights of the people. Consequently it is established jurisprudence that the body of the Constitution is to be read as the Federalists promoted it to the people who ratified it - as including within itself all the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.
If you read the Constitution that way the words "the press" fade out, and words like "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article 1 Section 9) come into focus. Because what the Associated Press and its membership has done is to lobby for a title of nobility - "the press" - which gives them privileges to be withheld from the people. "The freedom of . . . the press" is actually the right of the people to spend their own money to use technology to promote their own (political, religious, and other) opinions.
If you do not read "the press" as a ceiling on our rights, and if you read in Article 1 Section 8 that the federal government is explicitly authorized "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," you will find in the Constitution no warrant for the claim that the framers of the Constitution expected no advances in the arts of communication and that therefore the Constitution does not cover high speed presses, photography, telegraphy, telephony, sound recording, radio, mimeograph machines, movies, talking movies, television, photocopiers, hi-fi steros, computer/printer combinations, Compact Disks, HDTV, DVDs, satellite radio, the Internet and the worldwide web - or whatever comes next.
It is in my experience a great mistake to try to prove that journalism is not objective - for the simple reason that that is a political opinion. You would do just as well to expect to be able, in an hour's conversation, to convert a Democrat to a Republican. My point is not the mere fact that I can cite examples of tendentiousness in journalism until the cows come home, and my point is not simply that no one can prove that journalism is objective because lack of bias is an unprovable negative. My point is that I have a right to listen to Rush Limbaugh, provided only that he makes his program available to me on terms that I am able and willing to meet, without reference to what a politician or judge, or all of them, think of Rush Limbaugh's opinions. Just as surely as your garden variety "sheeple" has a right to listen to Katie Couric. A government which distinguishes between the two is not operating under the Constitution.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144624/posts?page=16

It would be no different from NPR or PBS if they did. And actually of a piece with the assignment of radio channel broadcast licenses on the premise that the broadcaster will "serve the public interest" by broadcasting Associated Press journalism. And of a piece with McCain-Feingold limits on who can criticize politicians at election time.

All of the above would be recognized as being unconstitutional by any mind not clouded by the propaganda to the effect that "the freedom of the press" refers to privileges of Associated Press journalism specifically.
Journalism as we know it does not trace back to the time of the ratification of the First Amendment, but only to the founding of the Associated Press in 1848. The openly partisan and fiercely independent "newspapers" of the founding era would never have countenanced, let alone promoted, the idea that a competing newspaper was objective. And, lacking a source of news not in principle accessible to the general public by any other means than reading the newspapers, founding era newspapers were more about political commentary than about news. The dominance of the monopolistic (found in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1945) Associated Press reversed all of that, creating journalism as we know it.
"The freedom of the press" in the First Amendment properly should be understood as the right of the people, not any special privilege of the members of the Associated Press, to spend money to apply technology to their efforts to promote their own political (and other) opinions. To assign that freedom to specific individuals rather than to the people would be to make "the press" into a title of nobility in violation of Section 9 of Article I. And since Section 8 of Article 1 specifically gives the government the authority "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," limiting the meaning of "the press" to the literal Eighteenth Century printing press arbitrarily assumes that the ratifiers of the First Amendment intended to limit their own and their posterity's freedom to use new communication technology (and which technology specifically? The radio but not the high speed printing press? The television but not the telephone? The internet but not the photocopier?).
The Bill of Rights was intended as a minimal accounting of the rights of the people. To restrict freedom of the press to specific people or to specific communications technology is to abuse the First Amendment by using it as a ceiling, rather than a floor, on the rights of the people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145570/posts

In Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton brings up a good point against a bill of rights:

it is evident that [a bill of rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

IMHO that is what has happened with the First Amendment and the right of the people to spend their own money to avail themselves of technological means to promote their own (political, religious, and other) opinions.
We have the spectacle of the members of a monopolistic organization, the Associated Press - an institution not even extant at the framing of the Bill of Rights nor even in the entire lifetime of James Madison (1751 – 1836) - declaring themselves alone to be "the press" protected by the First Amendment. And successfully promoting "campaign finance reform" laws to denigrate the rights of the rest of the people on that basis.
Each law more onerous than the last - and with the author of the latest, John McCain, announcing shortly after its passage that McCain-Feingold was not restrictive enough!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2149459/posts

"less incentive to break important stories and to be aggressive watchdogs"

There has been NO incentive for the PI and the Times to compete on important stories; just competition to see which one can be a more slavering running-dog lackey of the left wing lunatic fringe.

Journalism is about change, and change is what "progressives" offer.
The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but the Associated Press has arrogated the title "the press" to itself - as though the right applied exclusively to that institution. But the framers were not, could not have been, talking specifically about an institution whose founding was generations in the future when the First Amendment was ratified. The Associated Press created journalism as we know it, with its nationwide homogeneity and its claims that all journalists are "objective." But "the freedom of the press" is the right of the people, not only of some oligarchy, to spend money to use technology to promote our religious, political (and other) ideas.

Don't count on bloggers or talk radio to fill the gap, said former state Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge, another committee leader: They mostly talk about what's in the newspapers.

We the people talk about what is on their minds - and while Big Journalism is able to dominate the national conversation, what is on our minds will mostly be "what's in the newspapers." Conservative bloggers/forum posters exist in reaction to the fact that journalism is inherently anticonservative. And in reaction to the "progressive" politicians who draft on the propaganda wind of Big Journalism.
There is no reason that the political parties cannot produce, and publish on the web, the political rhetoric which frames the national conversation. The people have no need of an oligarchy of pseudo-objective journalists to fill that role.
P-I's closure in Seattle would reflect U.S. trend (Official Dinosaur Media Wake®)

I agree with Rush's take on this - namely, that an attempt to revive the "fairness" doctrine is in fact coming at us - not only at talk radio but probably also at the internet - but that it will be called something other than the "fairness doctrine." That has already been run into the ground, and another euphemism for censorship will be employed - something along the lines of "community standards." My take on it is that we have no hope of winning in the court of public opinion if that is defined as whatever the MSM says it is. But we do have hope in SCOTUS as presently constituted, because it was O'Connor rather than Kennedy who provided the fifth vote in McConnell v. FEC to uphold McCain-Feingold, which essentially upholds the idea that "the press" "is" "objective."
My approach would be, ironically, to avoid reference to the First Amendment but rather to argue that the Bill of Rights was understood by the framers of the Constitution to be included within the Constitution itself. And I would argue that there is under the Constitution no such thing as a "fourth estate," since under Section 9 of Article 1
"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States,"
and the strata of

first estate, Lords Spiritual - the clergy in France and the heads of the church in Britain

Lords Temporal, second estate - the nobility in France and the peerage in Britain
third estate, Commons - the common people

fourth estate - the press, including journalists, newspaper writers, photographers

have no application here. Here, there is only "the governments" (of various jurisdictions, including the federal one) and "the people." I held back from discussing the First Amendment because the term "the press" has been distorted by those who claim that they have special rights not contemplated in the Constitution. "The freedom of . . . the press" is not a right only of those who own presses now, it is the right of the people to spend their own money to buy presses at their own pleasure. Indeed, those of us who own computers and printers, or photocopiers, may be said to own presses. So the claim that only journalists are "the press" is fatuous. Indeed, the newspapers of the founding era were distinctly different from those with which we are familiar - to such an extent that those who today style themselves as "the press" would not recognize any of the printers of the newspapers of the founding era as being members of their "press." Because implicit acceptance of the objectivity of all other journalists was not a staple of the Eighteenth Century newspaper. That is an artifact of the telegraph and the Associated Press (founded 1848), which probably no framer of the Constitution or Bill of Rights survived to see.
The claim that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee technologies such as the radio and the internet can be countered by reference to Article 1 Section 8 which explicitly provides that Congress has the authority
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
which certainly authorizes the reader of the Constitution to assert that in fact the framers did foresee and promote progress in technology "useful" for publicizing information and opinions. The fear of the Federalists who opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution was that it would not cover every right which was (they held) implied by the body of the Constitution - and that opponents of liberty would use the Bill of Rights not as a floor but a ceiling on the rights of the people. And when people suggest that liberty does not apply to the use of technologies not mentioned in the First Amendment that is precisely what they are doing. Hence, my point that an appeal to the First Amendment may ironically not be the best way to vindicate the right of the people to promote our opinions by use of post-Eighteenth Century technologies, to the limits of our own purses and predilections. And the collateral right of the people to attend to, or at their own pleasure to ignore, any such efforts.
ACLJ ready to do battle against 'Fairness Doctrine'
And from my POV the problem we should be addressing is precisely how to get that issue before SCOTUS, and precisely what remedy we can seek in such action. It is not clear to me that waiting for some "fairness doctrine" assault to fully form is prudent. It seems to me that there should be torts to be found in any and all operations (and in some inactions) of the Federal Election Commission, for example. Because campaign finance regulation is censorship.

The First Amendment says that the government has no business controlling printing or speech. It does not mention broadcasting or the internet. Full stop. But then if it did say anything about those things, that would be proof that it was not written in the Eighteenth Century - just as the fact that the "Killian memos" were made using Microsoft Word proves that those documents were not made in the 1970s.
But it is not true that the Constitution does not provide for such things. First, the Constitution (in Article 1 Section 8) explicitly gives Congress the authority
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
. . . so it is patently not true that the Constitution does not contemplate the possibility of new means of expressing political opinion - or of doing anything else.
Second, it is settled doctrine that the framers of the body of the Constitution did not include a bill of rights in it so that it would not constitute a ceiling on the rights of the people. On that basis many methods of expression - yea, unto the smearing of chocolate on nude bodies - have been accorded constitutional protection without being explicitly mentioned in the document. The right of freedom of the press is the right of the people to spend money on the use of technology to promote their political opinions. Not least, by buying the newspapers - or patronizing the products advertised on radio programs - which promote their beliefs and attitudes.
Congress - or any body such as the FEC or the FCC created by Congress - has no constitutional authority to prevent us from listening to political commentators under any pretext.
On a personal note, see my tag . . .

Thats what the fight has to be about fairness for all or nothing. Because if its about journalism then all talk show hosts should have to do is call their shows news programs.

Quite true - with the caveat that the "conservative talk show host" does not claim superior objectivity as the "objective journalist" does. And that is fundamental to their respective programs. "News" reporting which didn't claim objectivity, hence moral superiority over the "conservative talk show host," would be a different thing from journalism as we know it.
And a talk show host who claimed objectivity would not be a "conservative" (I use scare quotes with "conservative" because the word does not do our philosophy justice since American conservatism is actually, in etymological terms, liberal and progressive - and favoring liberty and progress is not "conservative" in any other context than preserving the American tradition and Constitution. Anywhere else, those attitudes would not be "conservative." Destroying the freedom to progress by, for instance, developing our petroleum reserves, at what some call the hazard of climate change, is what would be conservative).
In reality the difference between the "objective journalist" and the "conservative talk show host" is the difference between a sophist and a philosopher (using the etymological definition of the latter term). I cannot undertake to pinpoint the difference between "objectivity" and "wisdom." Is there, after all, such a thing as "unwise objectivity?" And yet it would be risky for anyone to openly claim superior wisdom to a debating opponent because that is inherently arrogant:
sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.

philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
It is a form of arrogance to claim to be above labels, above "left" and "right" - especially when the person who does so then labels his debate opponent "conservative" or "right wing" or, the now-obsolete favorite, a "right wing cold warrior." It is a form of humility to accept a label when it fits. Said differently, the only way to even attempt to be objective is to assume that you are inherently subjective, inherently not objective. Only then will you make full disclosure of what you want to be true before discussing what you believe to be true.
I note all of the above to explain that there is no room in the "objective journalism" tent for a "conservative." Let a "conservative" claim to be a journalist, and there will be war. Because the journalist takes his own objectivity, and thus moral superiority, for granted as a birthright - a veritable "title of nobility" as the Constitution puts (and prohibits) it. And of course the journalist is supported in that claim by the "liberal," the "moderate" and the "progressive" (none of whom, after all, holds any principle above the motive of getting favorable publicity from the journalist - or the journalist would not award them that positive label).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2201925/posts?q=1&;page=76#76

If newspapers really want to regain relevance, they will print news that is not so easily dismissed as liberal.

. . . but if the very definition of "news" prevents that, that creates an inherent problem.
Conservatism counsels us to "count your blessings" and to concern yourself with things that do not change.
If the news is negative "If it bleeds, it leads," and superficial "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper," "news" is a close cousin to radicalism. Inherently.
Another inherent issue with "conservative" journalism is the claim of journalism to be objective. Because subjectivity is simply the assumption of one's own objectivity, any claim of one's own objectivity is self-falsifying. And yet commercial journalism lives and dies by that very claim.
I conclude that "conservative journalism" is an oxymoron.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2220689/posts

To support the "Fairness" Doctrine you have to do the three things that Steve Glorioso does in the segment:

claim that left wing perspectives are shut out of AM radio,
The rise and fall of Air America puts paid to the first of those contentions. De minimus market for explicitly left wing talk radio exists. Hence, there is no proof that broadcasters discriminate against purveryors thereof.

claim that other media than AM radio are insignificant,
Aaron Barnhardt handled the second assertion well, mentioning the tv commedy (that's left wing comedy) shows with wide reach and significant audience.

and - the biggie -

claim that conservatives can't prove, anecdotes aside, that journalism is not objective.
First, I would argue that no proof is needed, since the presumption must be in favor of freedom and against censorship, which is what advocates of anything like the Fairness Doctrine actually intend. In earnest of that position, I support and actually endorse the idea of having a network of left wing radio stations in the country. I even have a proposed name for it - it should be called, "National Public Radio." Making its tendency official would be an improvement.
Second, as an employee of a newspaper Aaron Barnhardt cannot be an open, full-throated advocate for the fact that journalism is biased - much less for the easily proven proposition that journalism is a bias. As demonstrated by the fact that in principle an entire great metropolis theoretically could grow, gradually over the course of a couple of decades, without ever generating the kind of incident which would make a great story. But let just one of the buildings in that metropolis burn down - and that would be a story.

Tea Party and the Fairness Doctrine

Simon praised the Internet as a "marvelous tool" for information delivery, but produces little in the way of original reporting.
"Instead, it leeches that reporting from mainstream news publications, whereupon aggregating Websites and bloggers contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth."

Let's play that thru our trusty disgronifier and get the reality:

"The News" is froth, almost exclusively. That's what it means when journalists say, "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" (which is just another way of saying, "Meet your new deadline for today's newspaper" - you can always find something to say, and claim it is important).
"The News" is also negative - "No news is good news" is a true saying, because good news "isn't news."
The claim that "journalism is the first draft of history" is either false or shocking, because historians worthy of the name shy away from writing about current events. And because "First reports are always wrong," and because journalism is always selling. It is always selling journalism, which means it is always selling froth. Froth which is slanted to inflate the importance of journalism, which means (since journalism doesn't pick the crops or capture thieves or design or make widgets) that journalism inherently tends to criticize and second-guess the people who do do those things.
Because of that, journalism has an inherent political tendency. And it gives politicians who promote that same tendency favorable labels. Such as "liberal" (Americans favor liberty, after all) and "progressive" (Americans believe in progress) and "moderate" (who can object to the classical virtue of moderation?). Journalism never labels people it agrees with as extreme, or on a "wing" of anything. But it labels people who disagree with its perspective "conservative" (you may think that's not a negative label, but marketers don't generally salivate over the idea of plastering "Old!!" on boxes to put on store shelves), or "right wing."
Web sites certainly tend to repeat "the news," but I for one do not enjoy the froth which is "news" as a general proposition - I essentially never listen to network news, because I consider "news" to generally be irritating tendentiousness. I want perspective, and thoughtful reflection on events and political actors. I want commentary. Including, importantly, the ability to interject my own commentary into a serious discussion. What journalism sells, OTOH, is arrogant claims of its own importance and relevance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2245740/posts?page=1

For several decades, most of the ingenuity that liberal academics have invested in First Amendment analysis has aimed to justify limiting the core activity that the amendment was written to protect -- political speech. These analyses treat free speech as not an inherent good but as a merely instrumental good, something justified by serving other ends -- therefore something to be balanced against, and abridged to advance, other goods.

It's not just "liberal academics" who exert themselves in that direction - ironic and irrational as it may seem, the associated press does exactly the same thing. The public didn't particularly favor McCain-Feingold; it polled very low as a priority of the public. The people who backed it and successfully promoted its passage were the people who consider themselves "the press" and "the fourth estate." Why would they do that? Simple - they are associated. They are monochromatic; if you miss ABC news read the New York Times, if you miss the Times just listen to ABC News - and so on. So de facto, the (self-defined) "press" is not the people exercising its right to speak and to publish our opinions, "the press" as the Associated Press defines the term is an entity, namely, itself.
Now, the telegraph and the Associated Press didn't exist until the middle of the Nineteenth Century - so the Associated Press was not, and could not have been, written into the Constitution in the First Amendment. But what we have instead of a free press is a unified press which declares itself to be objective and has succeeded in establishing that template for the thinking of America over a span of a half-dozen generations. But since it and its membership exist to promote themselves first of all, it is only natural that many politicians would go along and get along with the unified "press." And just as natural for journalists to reward those who do so with positive labels such as "progressive - and "liberal," and to punish politicians who have principles they place above going along with "the press" with negative labels such as "right wing" and "conservative" (we are not actually conservative, it's just that we aren't radical and that looks "conservative" to the radicals in "the press."
End Run on Free Speech
Townhall.com ^ | May 24, 2009 | GEorge Will