While I generally agree, I can't find a simple yes or no answer to the questions you raise. These days, the (manufactured?)complexities create furballs of what should otherwise be simple situations. The liklihood the media is putting American lives at risk really muddies up their first amendment right....or does it? I don't find any qualifiers.
Maybe one solution might be for "W" to take it to the American people. Explain that the position most of our faux press is taking on the WOT generally, and Iraq in particular, is endangering Americans at home and abroad by giving aid and comfort to the infidels. Tell Americans the faux press has the right to spew their drivel, but that American citizens have the final word on the media's performnace, and should hold them accountable if they feel they are crossing the line. In fact, it should be our duty, but most people need a fire lit under 'em before they'll get up off the couch.
But then, I dont' think CFR is constitutional, either . . .
Can't argue with that.
FGS
It just seems to me that the "answer" is freedom of what can be free, and that is the literal press, and the Internet. On the Internet, there can be all sorts of kooks and tinfoil-hat theories, and it doesn't much matter. There can also be FR.But the uniqueness of the broadcast networks lies precisely in the government's role in making them few in number as well as high in convenience--making them great addresses. And giving them, de facto, the imprimatur of the government. With all th UNfreedom involved in that, the government intrinsically has the authority to control the networks, if it durst use it. And therein lies the tale; Democrats simply go along with broadcast journalism, and Republicans durst not attempt to break the oligopoly.