Posted on 08/13/2011 4:55:32 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Ah, this is posted on FR.
Indeed.This brings us to the eternal question: Who is media and who is not? Who gets to decide?What does "media" actually mean in this context?The question isn't "Who is media?" but "What is journalism?" And, "What is the relationship between journalism and the political parties, and to the people?"
The answer journalists would give to those questions is entirely self-serving:
"Journalism is the objective search for, and publication of, the truth. Since all journalists are objective they all agree on the truth - and people who do not agree with us are not journalists."However, journalists also agree that they select their stories for emphasis according to "If it bleeds, it leads," and "'Man Bites Dog' not 'Dog Bites Man'" standards, and that they always meet their deadlines irrespective of the importance of the news on any given day. And those rules have no bearing on the public interest but are centered on the very different objective of interesting the public for the financial self interest of the journalism outlets for which they work. That being the case, when they claim objectivity journalists are not objective about themselves.So journalists are not objective. Does that mean that other people whom journalists do not recognize as part of their fraternity (or, perhaps, their priesthood) have to be allowed to demand answers to questions without being ejected from the venue? No, it means that journalists are not objective and the voters are the judge as to whether they accept journalism's fraudulent claims. It also means that journalists do not merit "shield laws" giving them superior rights to other citizens.
Sen. Dick Durbin? His friends in the Chicago media? Are public officials accountable to the public? Do we have the right to question authority? Or must we just accept what they bestow upon us? Do we have the right to question the media? Or do we have to let the so-called “real” journalists impose their own idea of news? Of truth?uThe voters are the judges of that. If Democrats align themselves with the interest of journalism, it is only natural that journalists will favor them over Republicans. It is up to the voters to recognize that, and draw their own conclusions.The only legal recourse against journalism would lie in the fact that the unity of the journalism community derives from their mutual association via wire services, especially the Associated Press. The AP was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945, and given that the mission of the AP to conserve bandwidth in the transmission of news is an anachronism in the 21st Century, the AP might be vulnerable to serious legal ramifications when it is no longer "too big to fail."
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.