This has nothing to do with the 1st ammendment. It has to do with professional conduct in reporting the news. Fabrication of news is by definition unprofessional, its not news , its fiction.
Editorial commentary is not news. The simple fabrication of fact is the problem, claimim=ng sources that are fictitious, and unverified facts as if true is unprofessional. No other professionals are allowed to lie professionally and avoid censure: DOctors, Lawyers, Real Estate Agents Police officer, Court Clerks, the list is long.
That standard of conduct should also apply to journalists. Staes by law have the jurisdiction for professional liscencing, usually through the Secratary of States Office. I would love to see it happen.
Editorial commentary is not news. The simple fabrication of fact is the problem, claimim=ng sources that are fictitious, and unverified facts as if true is unprofessional.
I don't question that the fabrication is a problem. But the First Amendment is not qualified on the basis of any distinction between commentary and news; the editorial page did not even exist as a seperate entity when the Constitution was ratified. And in fact the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to make the judgement between the two.No other professionals are allowed to lie professionally and avoid censure: DOctors, Lawyers, Real Estate Agents Police officer, Court Clerks, the list is long.You may reply that I have in my prior post advocated exactly that judgement by the government in the case of broadcast journalism - and you would be correct. I do not blush to stand by that, tho, because the government is already judging who gets the FCC licenses and who - you and I - is not allowed to broadcast at all. In making that decision the government is so far outside the Constitution that it is a joke. I am merely advocating that if the government is to license a few to broadcast while censoring the many - which is root-and-branch unconstitutional - the government should not be allowed to license the broadcasting of "objective" news.
That standard of conduct should also apply to journalists. Staes by law have the jurisdiction for professional liscencing, usually through the Secratary of States Office. I would love to see it happen.
Journalism has plenty of codes of ethics. And journalists continually prove that those codes aren't worth the powder to blow them to kingdom come. Because story selection - what gets put on the front page, and what goes unreported - cannot be regulated objectively. The FCC used to have a Fairness Doctrine to balance the liberal and the conservative programming. It was a joke, tho, because while conservatism was limited, liberalism was rampant - but it called itself "the news."