Posted on 06/24/2006 3:32:47 PM PDT by jennivinson
The Separation of Press and State By Jenni Vinson May 21, 2005
America was premised on the rule of law. America was also premised on the idea that the nation would fair well with an open, honest and unfettered Press. The nation would have an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government at the National, State and local level and a Press that would bear witness to how these entities carried out their jobs.
What the Founding Fathers envisioned was a Press that was completely independent of politics and not beholden to such interests. For the most part, the Press has been a pain in the butt to the carriage of our government in America’s history. Even on various battlefields as they walked through events in them—but not of them. Our Founding Fathers drew a distinct line as they established a separation between Press and State. That line has been breached for decades now.
The national elite media could once deny that an alliance existed between them and the Democrat Party, but the kid gloves came off during the 2000 Presidential election. Too much was at stake to allow for George W. Bush to take the White House from Al Gore. The kid gloves have been off since then but the 2004 election found the media quite willing to put on other gloves—as they entered into the political ring ready to fight for John Kerry’s right to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue along with all of them.
The Press was supposed to archive events as they happened. They were supposed to bear witness to events and inform the public. They are called before the Court of Public Opinion to testify—to bear witness. We have trusted them to adhere to a standard of ethics and morals that dictated that they stick to facts and keep their own ambitions out of the Who What Where When and Why of things.
They are American citizens and as such they are subject to having individuals rights, but just as when one joins the military, when one joins the Press, they are also held to a collective standard of rules that apply to that group. They were supposed to keep themselves unfettered by politics and yet over 80% of Journalists ally themselves with the Democrat Party. They violated the separation of Press and State as they have long wanted to BE THE STATE—to govern this nation through their own power and influence.
Now, we see that the Press willingly enters into the Court of Public Opinion and they offer testimony based on faulty, flimsy facts or sometimes testimony that is outright false. Dan Rather and his crew at 60 Minutes mired into a single story for five years. They went before the Court of Public Opinion days before a Presidential election in hopes that the story would stick and alter the election. Even though it was discovered that they relied on falsified documents for their grand story, the good folks at CBS insisted that it didn’t matter that they documents were fake—the story COULD BE REAL. In 1998, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek had a story about then President Bill Clinton’s illegal affair with an intern young enough to be his daughter. Isakoff had the story nailed, but Newsweek sat on the story because even though the story was fully documented, the story might NOT be REAL. So Matt Drudge of the Drudgereport took the story right out from under Newsweek.
Isikoff was the first get the story on Bill Clinton’s problems with both Paula Jones and then with Kathleen Willey, but again, Newsweek opted to sit on both these stories and again Matt Drudge took the stories right out from under them. Poor Michael Isikoff had been graced with so many accounts of historical importance, but he and his editors took such pains to ensure they would not harm their man and their party—that they lost out on credits.
But, Newsweek did not hesitate to run with a recent story about Qurans being flushed down toilets at Guantanamo as a horrifying insult to Muslim detainees. It was another Isikoff story, but this time, no one held back even though isikoff’s anonymous source simply said he had heard of this incident.
Even though the military account is that it was a Muslim detainee that attempted to flush the Quran to clog up his toilet and keep the guards busy, the Press was sure it was American soldiers who were insensitive, oppressive bruts. The Muslim world believed the American Press, rioted violently and 17 human beings lost their lives. After causing these deaths, Newsweek and their Press associates still insist that even though their source was wrong that they story is still TRUE because the American military behaved badly at Abu Gharib and were therefore capable of flushing a Quran down a toilet.
And so, Newsweek entered into the Court of Public Opinion and bore false testimony. It is indeed a slippery slope when lines are crossed and the separation of Press and State has been breached. It is not a Court of Judicial law, so we cannot hold the Press in Contempt of Court, but I put forth that we can clearly see that our elite media is in Contempt of Country.
In a transparent attempt to harm the Bush Administration and the American Military, Newsweek was all too willing to bear the brunt of serious consequences. Even after it was known that people had died, no one in the elite media seemed sorry. No one seemed altered and no one stepped up to take responsibility.
It was as if they were saying to us—“look—we stood in a crowded building and yelled fire because we felt we had a responsibility to do so. The building was made of stuff that COULD burn—so obviously—there was a danger and we reported it. It isn’t OUR fault that people panicked, stampeded and killed one another as they exited this obviously flammable building.
Therein lies the real story to all of this. People died and the elite Press knows they cannot be held accountable. It’s up to the Court of Public Opinion. It’s up to us to withhold our support from such magazines and newspapers and to send them a clear message— you are supposed to be the American Press, not simply an extension of the Democratic Party. You have violated the Separation of Press and State and you must step back or be replaced.
The Constitution lays out sketchy rights for the Press. When it comes to the release of Classified information during a time of war, the NY Times and their associates within the elite media are about to hauled before the Supreme Court. At that point, they'll find their rights refined and greatly curtailed. A reporter does have to devulge a source in certain cases and a reporter may well be tried for espionage in the near future.
I’m Jenni Vinson. The Separation of Press and State is My Opinion. Thank you for listening.
Close.
Cryptic.
So, where was it for, say, the last 50-60 years or so? Was "conservative" news just not exciting enough to sell, or were there other considerations?
This of course begs the question of how it is that we find ourselves in a position where large numbers of both Liberals and Conservatives are convinced that the media distorts reporting in favor of the other's opinions.
Just my own observation, but liberals are mental cases who believe anything and anyone not left of Josef Stalin are right wingnuts, and wouldn't recognize true media bias if it bit 'em in the a$$. And it has. I have watched the "animated" Neal Gabler on Fox NewsWatch a few times and the guy's arguments almost always fall flat. "The media is owned by corporations, so they must be biased towards business"(that is, conservative) as an example. No evidence, even anecdotal, but he says it loud and long enough the others on the panel, even Jane What's-her-face, just shake their heads in apparent bewilderment. I personally know of people just like him who will not even debate the issue of utopian dreamers running the media, or anywhere else for that matter. I expect these people will always be with us. The trick is to see their ranks aren't increased.
It ain't gonna be easy but we've got to continue trying. Our target audience should probably be the 20% or so of the uncommitted electorate that are the swing votes in each election. They are reachable and and persuadable, given the proper motivations. What that is, is anybody's guess.
I may be missing your point altogether, but I would submit journalism can have a tremendous effect on our government. The more monolithic the media, the greater the potential impact IMHO. In fact, I have gone so far to suggest in the past, the Dims could in fact be taking their marching orders in large part from the media. You know, if it plays well in Peoria??? At the very least they're using the same playbook.
We either will have it in us to face down this threat, or we won't. Our Founding Fathers are betting on the former. That was my point.
Point taken, but at least one of our founders had some misgivings. Ben Franklin, when replying to a question concerning what type of government the founders had created, "A republic, if you can keep it".
A quote from one of our founders I really like:
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence
FGS
So let it be said.
So let it be done.
That is exactly how I feel. There are just enough people who can be influenced in the proper way at the right time.
If Hillary runs in 2008 I am rather sure that I have about two pages of literature and info on her "core values" that, if distributed well, will certainly influence that 20% to avoid voting for her.
The point, surely, is that it depends on what you mean by "conservative." Every ongoing corporation has a culture, and it sustains itself by conserving that culture. So that is "conservatism" WRT itself, whether or not you or I would consider it "Conservative." When it comes to self preservation, Fidel Castro is "conservative."So whether it is Hooters or a Communist dictatorship or The New York Times, self preservation can be called conservative - but with no implication of any desire to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterityfor we-the-people of the USA.
His "... a Republic, if you can keep it..." rejoinder is a sublime double-entendre. Not only does it raise the spectre of history - will we fail as have all others before us??? - but deeper still, when considering the likely challenges which we would face in future generations, Franklin also asks us: will we dare to succeed where others have not?
It took almost 40 years for the partisan press to be replaced by the "objective" press, and I suspect it will take at least that long for the process to reverse itself, so we have at least another 10-20 years.
I am hoping, more or less desperately, that the passage of McCain-Feingold will prove to have been the high water mark of "objective" journalism. McCain-Feingold encodes the idea that at a critical time "objective" journalism is in the public interest and your speech or mine is inimicable to the public interest. It is wildly unconstitutional, Alien and Sedition Act, stuff.What effect might McCain-Feingold not have on the '08 presidential election? For that matter, what effect did "objective" broadcast journalism come within a hair's breadth of having on the 2000 election!!
We are in dire need of a SCOTUS ruling overturning its prior 5-4 decision upholding McCain-Feingold. Since O'Connor was in that majority, there is hope that a challenge to M-F could be upheld - but how much mischief might not come about in the meantime?
I agree, but Mc-F only showed that 527s will fill the void. Actually, regardless of how much more money the leftists spent, it was ONE 527, the Swiftboat Vets, who swung the election against Kerry.
. . . so tying one 527 up in litigation for a few months would have turned the election. Somehow I am not reassured . . .
Whatever challenges I might have to your editorial, I have to congratulate you for inspiring a lot of serious reflection on the part of a lot of Freepers. Good show.
Don't misread history. It seems like the good guys always get that one break they need. Midway, Gettysburg, 2004. One can't predict what would have happened media-wise if indeed Kerry HAD tried to tie up the Swifties. In the 527s, the lefties have opened a toothpaste tube they can't close, and my point is, it DOESN'T take a lot of money. Just a little money and the truth.
True enough and I'm sure the Gablers of the world could parse it into oblivion. Fact is, any corporation worth its salt does what it needs to do to, if not prosper, at least survive even in hostile political environments. To that end, knowing which way the political wind's blowing is key to their decision making. It also makes 'em easy pickins' for folks like JJ and his flying monkeys, but that's a horse of a different color........so to speak.
Indeed, and against all odds. What would Ben Franklin and his contemporaries be thinking right about now? I wonder how long it will take to determine whether or not WE have the right stuff?
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.