Posted on 11/27/2005 11:28:00 PM PST by Jim Robinson
In our recent awards ceremony honoring the Freepers, people who post comments and articles on the FreeRepublic website, Accuracy in Media was demonstrating an understanding of the power of new media. We cannot let the Big Media monopolize the concept of journalism. When we honored Harry MacDougald and Paul Boley with the Reed Irvine Investigative Journalism award, we were recognizing that ordinary citizens can be journalists, too.
Unfortunately, the sponsors of the so-called Free Flow of Information Act, or the federal media shield bill, do not understand this critical fact. In an October 10 article by Mark Fitzgerald on the Editor & Publisher website, he noted that Senator Richard Lugar, main sponsor of the shield law in the Senate, has said that bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists under the bill. On the other hand, Rep. Mike Pence, the main sponsor of the bill in the House, says some bloggers will be covered, but only those involved in "gathering news." He says those covered by the bill would have to be evaluated on a "blog-by-blog basis."
This confusion is a terrible indictment of the bill and its sponsors. They don't know what they're doing. It demonstrates the tendency of politicians to get behind something that sounds good but which is impractical, even dangerous. After all, who can be against the "free flow of information?" But when you get down to the nitty-gritty of who is actually a "covered person" or journalist under the bill, the sponsors seem to throw up their hands, leaving definitions to others. That's irresponsible.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
They all know they're going to hell no matter what, so they cannot stand bearers of "bad news" who seem to make hell for them a bit earlier.
Don't we dare white bloggers teach "multiculturalists" and politicians to treat each other better, though....then again, coming to think of it, they know their false prophets of "always good news" media are about to get them too, and so they might as well go to church and try that desperately in hope of being forgiven...ah!
This idea that certain classes of specially-anointed citizens have more access to basic Constitutional Rights strikes me as extremely dangerous.
We've seen this for years with the 2nd Amendment, where special rights accrue to police, politicians, and the politically connected.
Now we're seeing it with the 1st.
It's time to really, really push back.
I seem to vaguely remember something about an "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. Of course, with the interpretation of constitutional law being so durn 'flexible' these days, perhaps some are now more equal than others.
Hillary becomes dictator, errr president, and I'm on the next available El Al flight.
As it stands right now, "journalists" can fabricate anything they want, cite anonymous sources, and run with it. What more do they want?
bttt
What more do they want?
The likes of us to shut the hell up.
We're annoying to them. Counter-protests organized by some FR Members, hardly ever reported on by the MSM or local press, somehow always leak out to the general population and besmirch the thin shield of impartiallity the MSM tries to keep up.
FR was never forgiven for keeping the Foster questions before the public,
for publicly nipping at Hillary's heels,
for instigation and participation of some members in Florida and chanting outside the VP residence after the 2000 election..
And for beginning the destruction of Dan Rather last year over the Bush TANG memo fiasco.
Before this, we were an annoyance, suddenly, there was a real consequence for foisting made up news that could effect a national level election on the public and getting caught at it.
You can't control the news if you don't control its interpetation.
"Rep. Mike Pence would be my choice for VPOTUS."
correction
Rep. Mike Pence was my choice for VPOTUS.
BTTT.
I don't know why they need another law. This is covered by the first amenment, and if bloggers aren't covered, then why should "journalists" be covered?
Yeah, Uh huh and a Tomato isn't a vegetable either however a supreme court ruling sez it is so guess what its a vegetable!
Translation: if the government sez FR is a blog then a blog it shall be. (We should run them all out of Washington)
This sort of law is incredibly dangerous.
It provides protection for "approved" news outlets. The only protection should be supported by the First Amendment, and that protection should be absolute. Of course, that's no longer the case, given the McCain/Feingold CFR debacle. Since the SCOTUS decision, we've seen the First Amendment uphold any sort of expression EXCEPT political speech!
Between laws like this one, and the ones already passed, we are moving towards a government approved, corporate media news system. Especially in the last news cycle, the "New Media" became the outlet of "everyman," sort of like "Common Sense." Neither the "old media" nor those elected and holding office are particularly pleased with those results, as they can't control the news.
And they find that extremely disturbing.
Mark
The simple fact of the matter is that the "law of unintended consequences" can be a real bitch, especially when there are intended consequences written into the bill that squelch competition with the "old media."
A good example of that was a law that the MO state legislature passed to outlaw homosexual sodomy. Instead, they accidentally outlawed all sex acts in the state of MO, including those between married couples. Of course, they went in and fixed it, but it's just a good illustration of why we don't want congress monkeying around with any of our basic rights which are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. Those should be sancrosanct, but since we've got a runaway, activist SCOTUS, no basic right is safe, not even those which start out with "Congress shall make no law..."
Mark
Not according to the SCOTUS, as shown in their upholding of the McCain/Feingold CFR piece of crap.
You know, I like looking at nekkid wimmin, and according to the SCOTUS, nekkid dancing, and internet porn are protected forms of expression, protected by the First Amendment. But before an election, you can be fined and even jailed for expressing your political views.
Mark
Who the f**k is Mike Pence to determine this? So much for the inane "Pence for President" threads. He is a schmuck for this statement alone.
They can pry my keyboard from my cold dead hands.
Excellent point. It bears repeating.
. . .perhaps you were one (of at least a few, perhaps) that announced this some time ago. . .cannot remember exactly; but if you did. . .did you say 'why' as well, the name change?
It IS shorter. . .faster. . .and you do 'connect'. . .
. . .in any event; thanks, BD, for the update on the name change.
Agree. . .this should be more than a 'wake-up' call. And equally dangerous, as the 'specially-anointed' is the reality that they are first, 'self-annointed'. . .
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.