Ping.
It is nonsense to claim that the Framers did not anticipate communication technological advances; they explicitly gave Congress the power to promote technological progress via the patent office.
And if it is necessary to bring different communications technologies under a different constitutional dispensation, Article V makes provision for Amendments to handle that . . .
bump
It is often suggested that the First Amendment means that journalism is, or should be, objective. That is a fatuous conceit, because the language of the First Amendment cannot do anything but make it harder to hold journalists accountable for subjective bias. It is also absurd because although you can try to be objective by openly examining your own motives and interests and how they relate to the subject you are discussing, you can never know that you have discounted them completely. And that means that believing that you do know that is itself an extreme manifestation of subjectivity.Thus, if you accept a requirement that there be no subjectivity in what you print, and if you then proceed to print something anyway, you have implicitly made a claim which proves you are extremely subjective.
The problem is IMHO identical to that of the original “philosophers” of ancient Greece. They were faced with slippery arguments from people (the Sophists) who argued from the assumption of their own wisdom. How do you debate such people? If you claim to be wise yourself in response, the best you can hope for is a draw, and a very unedifying and ill-tempered discussion (and, presumably, one in which you need a convincing win instead of a draw, because your opponent must have some edge on you to be able to make that sort of claim in the first place. Which is a situation we are all too familiar with, in trying to contend with the “objective” journalists). The “philosophers” responded to the problem by refusing to claim wisdom for themselves, but instead claiming only that they loved wisdom. Thereby they drew the discussion away from emotionalism and back to the facts and logic of the topic under discussion.