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.
yep.....
ENEMEDIA ................ that's a keeper.
;-)
BTTT
Great article. A belated WELCOME ABOARD!
The separation of good, honest, freedom-loving, life-loving people individuals with bad, anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life, liars.
Great article. Thanks for writing it. Good people are connecting rapidly.
Purged? On what grounds? I hope that the Justice Department decides to take on the Times in itswillingneseagerness to increase the risk to our troops and ourselves by publishing secrets. But purged?I note that whereas I mentioned the tenuous constitutional basis for broadcast licenses, you attack three print organs which do not depend on specific government licenses. Let's put legal pressure on their weak point! Delegitimate broadcasting which claims to be objective - and broadcasting of "polls" which presume to speak for the people - and you would markedly reduce the propaganda pressure on the middle class and the Republican Party which represents it.
Attacking print journalism is IMHO a grievious error on constitutional grounds; we want to assert that if anyone can speak, we can speak, if anyone can print, we can print - and if anyone can post their opinions on the Internet, we can post our opinions on the Internet.
Otherwise, what's the point?
Nowhere in these writings is it said that only a virtuous people could be free, but the FF believed it to be true. There will always be a gap between what the law requires and what common sense dictates. If knowledge of our government's deeds and words is indispensible to a free people, does it not follow that the quality of our government will be directly proportionate to the quality of journalism?
I would edit that slightly...I would say We the People are the only guarantor of freedom.
Don't sell yourself short; this is excellent commentary.
Thank you for posting your excellent piece here- your analogy here is perfect:
"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..."
In short ........ the point is time seems short for a proper reaction to these security leaks and a seemingly conscious effort to weaken our war effort. If you do not feel that, see that, and understand that this country seems at and on an edge, ready to go one way or the other, there's little to be said to you.
Actions must be taken soon, imo, actions that we would not wish to be permanent but actions that are required nonetheless.
See post # 31 for more clarification.
Once again, may I say ........ a great post # 31.
****
I wish I would have said that.
Bravo!
Agreed.
Certainly it will be related to the quality of its nonfiction - of which journalism is a frail part.Journalism is inherently frail as nonficition because of its deadline pressure. First reports are often wrong, which is what makes broadcast "breaking news" such a tenuous source to rely on. And journalism is frail as nonfiction because the deadline pressure is not only to get the story accurate today, the pressure is to get stories which will sell newspapers today. Whether or not anything happened yesterday that actually bears comparison with the sinking of the Titanic.
I insist that our chief problem lies in convincing people that journalism vastly overhypes itself. Which is hardly something which should be surprising, when you think about it that way . . .
Well written, thanks for posting the article. :)
As I have said, we are working on this. We are in the final stage of a massive study looking at editorials of five major papers from 1958-1970, using accepted (even by libs) methods of phrase/word analysis to identify markers of change.
We also plan to contrast this as a variable with national opinion polls/voter stats.
Within your own response can be found the answer to your question. Virtuous government flows from a virtuous people; journalism has nothing to do with it.
The Founding Fathers were wise beyond what we deserve... it's almost as if they knew that the strength and durability of freedom, of the virtues of a Nation, could not be defined by how long it stood or that it would imperviously withstand all assaults. Instead, they created a framework wherein such assaults could be expected to appear as indeed they always had since history was recorded. Most importantly, these assaults would continually challenge each generation so that the better angels of our natures would rise up and defend our nation anew.
Every generation must remember this. Historically, it has been shown that we forget. Hegel (not one whom I normally quote as I have little use for nihilists, but this one he got right...) said "remembering history teaches us that we forget history" or something like that. Toynbee makes the same point.
So what do the Founding Fathers do? Create an edifice where each successive generation must - if the edifice is to be continually built up - remember in our times how it was done before, learn from the challenges our forebears faced, thus in our own turn rising up to the challenge of our day.
Freedom of Speech as it is written in the First Amendment guarantees that the old demons and enemies will always have the freedom to attack us, and in their repeated assaults (notice how similar today's dhimmicrat and media/academia are to their commoner/intelligentsia counterparts of the French, Marxist, Communist, Fascist & now Islamist revolutions/movements?) succeed in waking within us the vital flame of indomitable freedom that our Forefathers had. The "Greatest Generation" fought against unspeakable horror and tyranny, and the citizen soldiers of 60 years past earned their moniker. Today, we too, face the darkness, and I'm confident history will show we answered the call in a way that would make our ancestors proud.
Where does journalism fit in this? Certainly not on the side of virtue. Journalism is merely the voice; all ideas potentially are expressed through it. Not just the noble or virtuous ideas; all of them. That is what is most important about Free Speech; even more important than the current reality wherein an anti-Republican media suppresses those ideas which are ours. Because the bottom line is, it doesn't finally matter what the Rathers of the world say; what matters most is what is in our minds.
I am in everlasting awe of these, the Giants upon whose shoulders we today stand. And yes, I reiterate; their wisdom was more than we deserve... but we can earn this.
Bump for later reading...
a reporter may well be tried for espionage in the near future"
I wish but it will never happen. Huge portions of the American public are either brain dead or too bust worrying about Brad Pitts baby to realize whats going on in this country. They believe whatever the MSM tells then PERIOD. The NY Times is MY enemy as much as Osama is right now. They will put ME in harms way in their quest for power and their obcession with hating anything related t Bush . There is a grand socialist/liberal plan moving ahead in this country and the press leads the way . Nothing will be done .I would have though that the Times revealing recent secret plans would have brought a firestorm of a reaction ..Not even a slap on the wrist.There is a MAJOR intelligence leak in this country and I'll bet anyone it's a Bush hating Democrat.Sedition ? Yes , but will anyone be held responsible ? NO !
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.