“...appear to be making the choice to go along with the Administration”
Yeah, if the most powerful man in the world called me to tell me to take down a story I would “make the choice” to take it down too.
Not really. I’d fight ‘em tooth ‘n nail. But the majority would take it down out of reasonable fear of retaliation by very powerful people.
Politicians should not be calling newspapers in an effort to influence the message, or control information.
There is built-in intimidation, you know it, and I know it. Which, when used, runs counter to the first amendment.
The first amendment is there to prevent this exact thing—this intimidation (fear of retaliation), and/or coercion.
The opposite side of the intimidation coin is the “bailing out” of newspapers, which I think is a horrible idea for the same reasons I described in the previous post.
Now the papers are beholden to their benefactors—a clear conflict of interest.
Both your government and many newspapers are willing accomplices.
This is NOT the first amendment in action. In fact, it is the public destruction of the amendment and the principle behind it.