The First Amendment stricture,". . . no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."means that the government forbidden to require a standard of reliabiliy on books, magazines, or newspapers. The writers are not under oath, and are not subject to penalties for perjury.That is essential for freedom of thought and opinion to flourish. It does now occur to me, however, that there could be an analog to the "super marriage" concept being tried in, I believe, Louisiana. That concept being, that the "super marriage" vows are more binding, more respected by the state and divorce more difficult than in "regular" marriage.
The incentive to enter a "super marriage" is, simply, that refusal to enter into it is much like insisting on a prenuptial agreement--it implies a limitation of trust which both partners should have in each other before marriage in any event.
Perhaps there should be a "super journalism" entered into voluntarily by a news organization, and by its reporters individually as a condition of employment. That "super jouralism" would subject its practitioners to the penalties of perjury for knowingly false publication, including the insinuation that you know something when you do not in fact know it. The incentive to enter "super journalism" would be, simply, that refusal to do so would be denial of your proud boasts of "journalistic ethics"--a refusal to put your money where your mouth is.
Theoretically, FCC-licensed broadcasters already are subject to that sort of standard; the FCC certifies by law that the licensees are "broadcasting in the public interest as a public trustee"--and is charged with enforcing a prohibition on the transmission of false signals. We saw in the aftermath of the "Gore Wins Florida" announcement, tho, how seriously that law is taken. The discussion on Wednesday morning was not about the error broadcast Tuesday night at 7:50, but about the blood relation between GWB and the analyst who first correctly called "Bush wins Florida."
So my "super journalism" proposal is unserious, meant to dramatize the contrast between the claims of journalistic "objectivity" and the reality of journalistic cowardice/herd mentality . . . to illustrate Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate.
That journalism is or should be "unbiased".In fact of course,That journalism dominates public opinion.
And that public opinion should be soverign all the time.
The First Amendment tells the government NOT to attempt to enforce "unbiased" thought, speech, or printing.The public knows or certainly should know that believing journalism is strictly a "caveat emptor" proposition.
And this is a republic in which the public is soverign only on Election Day.
And in order to exercise that soverignty on Election Day, public opinion should be isolated from attempts at coercion (i.e., should be exercised in a secret ballot) or attempts at undue influence via polling-place electioneering or via any form of Election-Day PR efforts. Especially broadcast journalism, and most especially broadcast predictions of election outcomes before the polls close.