I wish them dead. I wish every last one of their “business models” dead.
We don’t need them and they no longer serve good.They have thrown over their unregulated constitutional role to serve ideology. They have sent to the white house an utter unworthy who despises America perhaps even more than they do. I want tham all out of work and scraping for a living far beneath their former payscale.
And ya’ know what? There’s even money that this will come to pass!!!
Sweet.
My thoughts exactly. You saved me a lot of typing! :-)
http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/
List of McClatchy newspapers that have closed printing facilities
They have thrown over their unregulated constitutional role to serve ideology.
"They" have no constitutional role.There is only "us" - the people - and the various jurisdictions of government.
The particular people who own presses and/or broadcast stations and/or cable channels style themselves "the press," and style their employees "objective journalists." Guess what, I can form an organization - many people have - and I can install myself as the "Great and Powerful Grand Imperial Wizard" in that organization.
Or maybe I will just call myself "Speech." Then I will have (in my own conceit, at least) a constitutional role in the government, just like "the press" does. And nobody else should be allowed to speak about politics during an election year but me. Just as, according to McCain (RINO,Big Media) and Feingold (D,Big media), "the press" has rights to publish about politics during election season but you and I do not. Do you see how stupid it is to assign a "constitutional role" to anyone, or any organization, on the basis of what they call themselves?
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists fought to a near-stalemate in the argument over ratifying the Constitution. In order to carry the day, the Federalists agreed to the Anti-Federalist demand for a bill of rights in the Constitution. The Federalists did not oppose the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights; to the contrary they held that the Constitution, without amendments, preserved all the rights in the Bill of Rights, by not granting the government the power to violate those rights - and that codifying a Bill of Rights would actually reduce the rights of the people by suggesting that the rights of the people were limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The fact that the rights of the people are not exhaustively enumerated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution is established jurisprudence; a liberal or a conservative member of SCOTUS would tell you that.
And it is my position that the people who style themselves "the press" do so to manipulate perception of the First Amendment precisely to the effect that the use of technology and money to promote political opinions is not a right of the people. If "freedom of the press" is not a right of the people as a whole (whether or not they currently own a printing press), then patently it is not a right at all but a privilege - and "the press" is a title of nobility in violation of Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution.
Likewise, anyone who questions the applicability of "freedom of the press" to broadcasting or web sites on the grounds is doing the same thing. It is a canard to claim that the Constitution is conservative; its prime directive is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." And the inclusion, in Article 1 Section 8, of the phrase
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveriesputs paid to the notion that the Constitution as a whole does not contemplate and even embrace technological change. Clearly the Constitutions did not, and could not have, mandated the development of the specific communication technologies of the high speed press, the telegraph, Morse Code, photography, the telephone, radio, AM and FM audio radio, the mimeograph machine, television, the photocopier, the computer, the laser printer and the ink jet printer, the internet, or the world wide web. But it consciously promoted such developments without foreknowledge of their specific capabilities or their societal effects. And there is no warrant in the Constitution for the creation of a Establishment which is entitled to use communication technologies while "the people" are not.