The upshot is that journalists don’t deserve special “rights” other than what you and I are entitled to. If they do get special treatment it is only a concession to their influence, not a matter of principle.
- ”Mainstream” journalists work for institutions which are members of the Associated Press.
- People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10
- The Associated Press newswire is nothing but a continuous 24/7 virtual “meeting” of “people of the same trade” of journalism. They must be presumed to be colluding against the public.
- The first step in any attempt at objectivity must be openness in declaring one’s own interest and motivation as it relates to the issue under discussion.
- It is impossible to be open about one’s own interests and motivations and simultaneously claim that you do not have any such motivations. That is, it is impossible to be open about one’s own interests and motivations and simultaneously claim to actually be objective.
- All members of the AP claim that all members of the AP are objective. Therefore, members of the AP are not even trying to be objective. They may claim to tell “both sides of the story” - they may actually believe it - but they are not qualified to actually be able to see the side of the story that isn’t aligned with their own interests. They don’t actually believe that there is another side of the story than their own. Of course that is difficult for anyone to do - but then, people who do not claim to be objective are at least honest in that regard.
In point of fact, “journalists” have no more right to the protection of the First Amendment than you or I.
See Branzburg v Hayes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes
In this case was this timeless phrase:
“Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.”