But I'm not so sanguine about a decision that would be favorable to us. I don't know if that would happen, but the risk is there. If we pick a court fight, we better be sure we would win, otherwise we're worse off.
I must disclose that my opinion of "The Law" has become a bit more jaded over the past 2 1/2 years after being exposed intimately to North Carolina's "judicial system" and its behavior during the Duke Lacrosse Frame. And this from a native of Louisiana, once the gold standard for political/legal corruption.
All this is about power. Raw power. Homogeneous Journalism™ once had it all. The MSM easily had as much power as elected government at any level. Then they became an extension and enabler of government once they agreed to share power. Sort of a 'peaceful coexistence.'
And now they're facing a degradation of that power.
I think we have the technological tools to debate them and win. What is lacking is the conviction of most of our conservative "leaders."
my opinion of "The Law" has become a bit more jaded over the past 2 1/2 years after being exposed intimately to North Carolina's "judicial system" and its behavior during the Duke Lacrosse Frame.
Certainly understandable - but as you well know, that was as much a riot by Homogeneous Journalism as it was anything else. That was journalism acting in its capacity as the Establishment, passing judgement irrespective of the facts of the "case." That is a perfect example of abuse of power on the part of the Nifong - and his power derived directly from his relationship to Establishment Journalism.Homogeneous Journalism™ once had it all. The MSM easily had as much power as elected government at any level. Then they became an extension and enabler of government once they agreed to share power. Sort of a 'peaceful coexistence.'We-the-people need SCOTUS to declare that freedom of the press is an elementary right of the people - at root, freedom of the press is the right of any person not merely to voice his opinion but to spend money and use technology to promote his opinion. Under the Constitution the government does not have right to oppose the right of any person to promote his own opinion in competition with any Establishment.
My take on the relation between Establishment Journalism and the government is that journalism's inherent motive is to attract attention and to be considered important. Failure to do that is financial failure and political failure, and what other motive would remain to journalism apart from success in at least one or the other of those things?Given that motive, and given the means at journalism's disposal, what would you expect journalism to do? I put it to you that you should expect journalism to criticize all the businessmen, and the police and military, who might in the natural order of things be considered more important than journalism.
Now consider the motive of the politician - to promote in the people the idea of his importance and competence. The politician who goes along with journalism in criticizing and second guessing the people who have responsibility for getting things done and working to a bottom line instantly has an ally in journalism. The politician who opposes unfair treatment of businessmen has an instant enemy in journalism. So when the Republican conservative is in power, absolute "it happened on his watch" responsibility is the rule. And when a Democrat is in power, his "good intentions" - and certainly not his incompetence - are all that matter.
To me, that line of reasoning has a lot of explanatory power.