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.
Bad Link? This is what I got to your link.
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET http://www.jvteditorials.com/.
Reason: DNS lookup failure for: www.jvteditorials.com
Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.0.50 (Gentoo/Linux) mod_perl/1.99_11 Perl/v5.8.4 Server at v1.prxy.klmz.mi.core.com Port 80
bttt
It's a problem that will never be solved........ because everyday electronic media (opinion forming media/advertising/news/entertainment) increases it's never-ending powerful incessant message..... and much of that message is that the media/journalism can be trusted. How convenient. ;-)
That chief problem of which you speak is not going anywhere any time soon!
Read Neal Gablers book...... "An Empire of Their Own : How the Jews Invented Hollywood".
You will see how much of what particular psychological and financial needs of some immigrants created the immense power of left media. It goes way back.
The media..... nearly all of it today in America......... is really basically an lefty/socialist oligarchy.
;-)
How very convenient, exactly . . . so convenient, in fact, that logically it is a fat target. The trick is to work on getting the most mileage out of venues in which logic might most easily be heard. Such as in a courtroom, in some cases.That chief problem of which you speak is not going anywhere any time soon!Not, unfortunately, that judges are immune to the flattery and derision of journalism . . .
But one such venue is FR. Where you find logic least availing is where "production values" are most significant - the movies, followed by TV and then by radio. Rush Limbaugh is such a gem because he synthesizes his own brand of production value, in the cause of conservation of the Constitution.
. . . as who can doubt? The point must be to impart to journalism at least a hint of disrepute that the genre deserves.
I see.. so you're saying jennivinson is wrong....
and the the American MsM is NOT skirting sedition and political espionage?.. EH!...
"Marxists are here, early on they figured out that they who control opinion-making WIN. They must be purged..........."
Yes, journalism is no longer a commitment, it's a product. I had an e-mail exchange for a few days with an editor from my daily paper. There was a Weds/Thurs period in 2002, I think, where Greenspan gave a state of the economy presentation for the House, then the Senate. The theme of the AP reporting for the first appearance (seen online) was that deficits were not good, therefore W should forget his tax cuts. You didn't get that message from the transcript.
This AP release made the Thurs paper. During Greenspan's Thursday appearance, he was asked specifically about this issue. He said no, that he supported tax cuts and that if deficits became an issue he would recommend spending cuts. Greenspan was very clear. I saw the AP release online Thurs after his testimony. This directly contradicted the prior day's reporting.
It didn't appear in Friday's paper...I e-mailed and asked why. An editor responded that they didn't have room. I replied that the reporting in sum left not only an inaccurate but a misleading message. He dodged that issue on his reply.
If you see the advertising that newspapers and TV newscasts offer you conclude they set the bar pretty high. They overpromise and underdeliver. The definition of a lie?
lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
Not when their screaming is killing our troops! It is time to SHUT THEM UP!
The link was good, maybe a server problem.
Marking. Excellent title.
bookmark
I'm all for that.
;-)
****
Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the press, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.
-Mark Twain
****
You may have missed the point there.
I was suggesting that they (the lefty anti-American propagandists would be screaming as they were being indicted and otherwise being dealt with in a severe way.
Look back to whom was given the three television network licenses back when they were "offered".
In the interests of time, I would solicit you assistance with that since you already seem to know the answer(s). Be that as it may, are you suggesting there was a conspiracy of sorts in the transactions?
Marxists are here, early on they figured out that they who control opinion-making WIN.
Agreed for the most part; at least in the short term. Long term, I don't know. That said however, the Goebbelists have been hard at work for decades(most of the 20th century even???) flailing away at the foundation blocks of our republic. To what end? I wonder whether socialism/communism is the ultimate goal, or that it may simply boil down to control freaks operating on a grand scale. End result the same, but driven by different motives?
The desire to control, through power, however derived, is an evil in and of itself, no? In an effort to apply the KISS principle, to me it would appear to be the age old war between good and evil. That is, tyrants vs freemen. Still in all, it doesn't answer the underlying question that I have, that is, HOW were they able to pull it off.
They must be purged........... start with the New York Times, The Compost, and Time magazine.
Not so fast, although I don't disagree with your sentiments. The "purge" could happen just as easily with a press that supports "traditional" values. The tide appears to be turning if the financial problems most of the major dailies are having is any indicator. Maybe the networks will follow? I don't know if anyone has a real handle on just why it's happening, but it is. Our mission, if we choose to accept it(cue the MI theme), is to continue spreading the word about the traitors and seditionists presently occupying the fourth estate. Also, press our congresscritters for a constitutional solution. We the people after all, if we choose to engage, are still(more or less) the sovereign rulers of our country. THAT needs to be said loud and often!
FGS
Eh? If propaganda is such a useless tool, why is it even used? The constant barrage of things untoward from our Ministry of Truth is not an accident, and it has an effect.
If you believe the Bible as I do, it tells us virtuous people do not occur naturally. Man's inclination is towards evil. So given a little push in that direction by the influence peddlers and, voila. The media, along with all the other agencies of the evil empire are doing their level best to boot all things God out of our country. Wonder why? The moral foundation necessary for a virtuous people to prosper has got to be destroyed. Is it working? You bet. Can it be stopped?
FGS
Indeed. Sowing the seeds of doubt far and wide re the media is about the best we can hope for.
See post # 65. Read that book. That is a long and good book. It explains a lot. Most of the Marxists who have great control and influence in our schools, universities, news departments and magazines, the entertainment business, and much of advertising are from Russia around the turn of the century (1900).
And yes, that author is the same weaselly Neal Gabler who is on FoxNews on Sunday morning.
;-)
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.