Today in Media History: In 1947, the press reported on the Hutchins Commission report

On March 27, 1947, the press reported on the Hutchins Commission report about the media.

Robert M. Hutchins, the president of the University of Chicago, served as the chair of the 1940s Commission on the Freedom of the Press. Time magazine’s Henry Luce suggested the creation of the commission and provided $200,000 in grants.

They evaluated the print and broadcast media as well as motion pictures. Their final report, “A Free and Responsible Press,” concluded that freedom of the press was in danger.

The commission cautioned against ownership concentration, rising costs, and the media’s preoccupation with sensational news. They felt that the media needed to take more responsibility for its actions.

The Internet Archive has posted a copy of the Hutchins Commission’s publication, “A Free And Responsible Press, the report of the Commission on Freedom of the Press.” It begins:

“The Commission set out to answer the question: Is the freedom of the press in danger? Its answer to the question is: Yes. It concludes that the freedom of the press is in danger for three reasons:

First, the importance of the press to the people has greatly increased with the development of the press as an instrument of mass communication. At the same time the development of the press as an instrument of mass communication has greatly decreased the proportion of the people who can express their opinions and ideas through the press.

Second, the few who are able to use the machinery of the press as an instrument of mass communication have not provided a service adequate to the needs of society. Third, those who direct the machinery of the press have engaged from time to time in practices which the society condemns and which, if continued, it will inevitably undertake to regulate or control.”

“Freedom of the Press can enhance civilization or END IT.”

The same NY Times that completely ignored the death camps until 1944 are NOW plying propaganda for the Chinese government against the United States.

One of the things the report said, "The media needed to take more responsibility for its actions". I don't know how much responsibility the media will ever take these days, but we the people must (somehow) erase the media as it exists today.

As is, most of the media is working against our President AND our country.

"A Free and Responsible Press”

Under the unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Ruling by the Warren Court, the press is (politically speaking) all freedom and no responsibility. Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan asserted that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
But - surprising, but obviously true - the conceit that the First Amendment affected libel law at all was an entirely novel ruling in 1964.

The ratification of the Constitution was a close-run thing. It only was achieved by the Federalists after they answered the criticism of the Antifederalists that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights with a pledge to promptly insert one by amendment.

American rights, following English custom, were a matter of common law. That is, it was organic and, as such, no comprehensive listing of them existed then (or, FTM, now). Thus, assaying to compose such was a fool’s errand. But the Federalists solved the dilemma with Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That is a catchall which, by itself, would have included all the rights alluded to in the first eight amendments.
So what are the rights enumerated in first eight amendments actually? They are the rights which tyrants had historically denied. Thus, politically,the rights of most concern.

But - most obviously in the First and Second Amendments - the enumerated rights are not all precisely defined within the BoR. What is “the” freedom of the press? What is “the” right to keep and bear arms?

The RKBA not only means the right to have a gun, it means the right to have ammunition and, safely, to practice. But no one has suggested that the RKBA entails the right to shoot out the windows of your least favorite politician - let alone make an attempt on the lives of Steve Scalise and his baseball teammates. Writing for SCOTUS, Scalia did a lot of homework to produce the Heller decision. What did he research? “The” RKBA as it existed in 1788.

Likewise, “the” freedom of the press does not entail the unrestricted right to print porn. Who seriously thinks that 1A would not have been controversial - would have been at all certain of ratification - if it had been seen to have that effect? And the arbitrary destruction of peoples’ reputations - libel - was illegal in 1788 and remained so after the ratification of 1A. The meaning of “the” in both 1A and 2A obviously entails historical context.

So you knew all along that exercising rights entailed responsibilities, and neither 1A nor 2A change the fact that that is as true with a printing press as it is with a gun.
And you know that ". . . libel . . . must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment” - and the entire Sullivan decision as precedent against libel suits by (Republican, since Democrats don’t get libeled) officials - is balderdash.

-- Correlation is not causation. --

I have to agree with that. And if you took my initial remark as suggesting that somehow Congress cause the press to be a scam, well, my bad. I view the two issitutions as independent. Neither one "cause" anything in the other. Each operates more on less on its own free will.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I think investigations fix anything or are useful. Yeah, sure, for history they are interesting.

Maybe I should have narrowed the remark to CONGRESSIONAL investigations don;t fix anything. I figure that was implied by context.

I mean I have no objection them knockingthemselves out. After all, it makes them feel good. I just see it as scam. Bengahzi hearings, Mueller hearings, and so on. Yeah, entertaining, but both sides claim victory and nothing changes. Smoke and mirrors.

And how about those impeachment hearings! Wowsa!

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.