On reflection the thing to understand about "liberals" who discuss the Constitution is that most of their references to it belong in quotes. Here is the present case, and my argument precisely on First Amendment grounds is critiqued as an attack on the "First Amendment."
But they do not mean the text as written but what they wish that text said--and what they arrogantly pretend that it does say. The liberal "First Amendment" says that Christianity should be viewed with suspicion by the government--not the other way around, as intended. The liberal "First Amendment" says that political parties' campaign activities can be subsidized for the purpose of controling them.
The liberal "First Amendment" says that a concensus of the powerful (i.e., "the establishment") determines truth--especially the WRT the lie that journalism is not the establishment.
If you listened to Mr. Gore talk about judicial nominees during the 2000 campaign, he promised to uphold the "Constitution"--his meaning, pretty explicity, was that liberals were not to be bound by any inconvenient strictures of the actual text of the Constitution.
However... who in their right mind can regard the current gaggle of blow dried air head news readers as "journalists"??? They collectively wouldn't know a true journalist if one came up and socked them in the nose and bit them on the a$$!! These people are teleprompter readers, nothing more. I admit, that requires a specific talent, but they can be no more considered "journalists" than can the food demonstrator at the local Safeway. In fact, I surmise that the food demonstrators at Safeway, when viewed by "objective standards", probably has more moral and ethical qualities than said "news readers".
While I can wholeheartedly agree that nobody can be "objective"- we are all influenced by our life's experiences- the skill of imparting the facts of a given situation minus the subjective trappings of same is something that can be learned, taught and probably quantified.
I am reminded of the "judges" in Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land, who were trained to set aside "subjective" biases and to base their work only on "objective" observations and facts. True Journalists would strive to be able to describe situations factually, without their own or other subjective biases coloring their work. Editorial commentary would have none of those restrictions, nor should it.
I have many times in the past called one of the local teevee stations, "our National Enquirer affiliate". Listen to their "news" anchors, and you can literally see the words jumping out of the front page of the National Enquirer/Globe/Star/World News editions. They choose the most emotionally charged words and phrases to describe a situation, then cut to a self serving commercial for their news casts calling them "the most trusted". Hah! Most sensational, most emotional, most biased, yes. Most trusted- not by anyone with an IQ greater than their hat size! And these people call themselves "journalists". Yeah, right.
I recently did a movie production, and for my "cameo", I played one of those teevee-teehee "reporters" from one of the local snooze stations. I wrote the "report" as strongly biased, over-the-top, sleazy newstype as I could to attempt to create as strong a parody as I could, and when I saw the finished tape, it was so tame that it couldn't hold a candle to the real snooze guys on the teevee than evening. Just shows to go ya that you have to work hard to get to be in-credible. And these guys do it daily, and make it look easy! Sheesh!
The "news business" has become exactly that- business. If it bleeds, it leads, ad nauseam. And teevee snooze business has turned newspapers [and I use the term "news" papers very advisedly] into competitors for the biggest, bloodiest "if it bleeds it leads" business. Watch the White House "news" gaggle... I cannot believe that these sub-moron IQ idiots are even allowed to work for a business, let alone one that calls themselves "journalists". I honestly believe that any one of them that can watch their performances and questioning in those news conferences and actually believes that look like anything higher than a mental retard shouldn't be allow to walk around with a sharp pencil. And these are the people that then go back and "file a report" that will be read my thousands or millions of people as gospel. If that were me, I would be too ashamed to even write my report, let alone put my name on the by-line. I wouldn't want anyone to know how obviously screwed up I was.
I am sincerely glad that I didn't go to journalism school, from what I've seen of the results. I have run a small publishing company, which put out a weekly newspaper. Fortunately, we didn't consider ourselves "journalists", and so we were just a thorn in the side of the local politicos, because we published a lot of true things about the local corrupt government. The big local paper was in the pocket of the gubbmint, and no one else would say anything against the corrupt regime; then there was us. We had government employees from all levels (grunt levels, of course) bringing us letters, documents, memos, etc., showing the corruption. We double checked them and then printed them. Wow! Want to start feeling the pressure!! Just shine the spotlight of public attention on the cockroaches of the bureaucracy! Amazing!
Unfortunately, it was a labor of love and a full time job (and more) that was being done in addition to our real full time jobs, and circumstances led to its demise... although not from the political pressure. Looking back on it, I'd really, immodestly, have to say that we were 100 times more the "journalists" than any of the snooze-media airheads of today. But then again, there is that "lack of self-importance" that contributed to the journalism, not the ego that seems all encompassing in today's "news busybodies"
Have any of the older Freepers noticed the rather new technique of these so-called "journalists" of keeping the camera on an interview subject while they break down in tears, blubber incoherently, wail, moan, gnash teeth, or whatever is applicable to the "story" they are telling, and completely useless to the "objective" interview? I seem to remember when real "journalists" on teevee would never include long moments of tearful breakdowns by the interview subject or similar subjective pap. In fact, I'm sure that there were probably written guidelines or stylebooks which real journalists went by that prohibited such emotional crap in their pieces. Now, that is all you ever see. In fact they seem to pride themselves on just how much of a "Jerry Springer moment" they can include as many times as possible in a short snooze segment interview. This is exactly the kind of "sensationalizing" the "news" that we seem to be decrying. Good journalists wouldn't allow that stuff to creep into their reporting, because that's what they are doing is reporting. Not selling, not convincing, not proselytizing- reporting.
As soon as more people wake up to the fact that these enterprises are a business, not a Constitutionally protected enterprise, and that they are subject to economic pressures, we will start to see changes, viz., the Politically Incorrect/Bill Maher situation. Don't call, email, fax or Pony Express the newspaper or teevee station about their air-heads blatant liberal bias. They already know that and encourage it, and they ain't about to change unless there is an economic incentive to do so. Like one of Maher's ex-sponsors said: He has every right to say what he wants, but we have every right to put our advertising dollars where we want. Peter Jennings would be on a bus, train or plane back to Canada in a second if every business that had a commercial on any of his snooze shows were to receive cogent, coherent, non-ranting letters stating that the writer would no longer purchase their product if they continue to advertise on his show. Granted, there are millions of sheeple watching him, but very few will actually make the effort to put a coherent message down on paper, research the highest executive in charge, mail it with a "return receipt", and then follow up with either a response to their response or just a follow up later on, to let them know you are serious.
Sorry for the long rant, but this has been an enlightening discourse, with the exception of the posts by the "journalism" idiot previously identified- but then, again, maybe his liberal idiocy is part of what stimulated this dialogue. 8^)
Seems that our Founding Fathers had infinitely more wisdom and vision that we sometimes think:
"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."
--Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819
And for our young "journalist" who cited Mr. Pulitzer:
"An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it' can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself."
--Joseph Pulitzer, American newspaper publisher
Where to begin. If the over 900 remarks to your post, contain as much "truth" about media as the first 50, I will ever remain swamped. Sorry I haven't run into this one before. Maybe I have and just don't remember. I will be saving for more attention later.
I have argued, the founders never thought of giving unfettered license to deception, lies, and outright BS, as they discussed the first amendment.
It is somehow inconceivable to me that the founders would grant such license to small groups of tv/radio station owners, when the bulk of the populace had no access to such media. I could hold the same view regarding the press, but that word is in the amendment, and print is slower and somewhat less pervasive than over the air communications.
If it were so, a small group of people, communications journalists, could use the first amendment to tear apart the country, and the majority of the population, could do nothing about it, because those means of communication were unavailable to the average person.
I have always felt it was a particular bad brand of cowardice that allowed anyone to protest a position while hiding behind the protections of the bill of rights. An example might be the anti-gun crowd crowing their right to be safe from evil guns, while exercising their freedom of speech.
Oh, there is so much more. Thank heavens for a Constitution.
Where would we be without it, knowing the degree of controversy with it.