Replies

1. In my very first column I identified myself as "an absolutist" on the First Amendment. Apart from having come to realize that absolutism in the pursuit of self-definition can be a bit reckless, my thoughts on journalism and the First Amendment have changed considerably. I still cherish the First; I still think it's the cornerstone of democracy. But I would love to see journalists justify their work not by wrapping themselves in the cloak of the law, but by invoking more persuasive defenses: accuracy, for instance, and fairness.

I dare to say that I am more of a "First Amendment Absolutist" than any MSM reporter, and than this columnist in particular. I believe that. with the caveat that the 14th Amendment extends its applicability to states as well as the federal government, it can be profitably applied just as it was written.

A "press" is something which prints ink on paper. "Speech" is in-person verbal communication. "Freedom" is what people can do whether the governor or president, or the chairman of the FCC or of the FEC, likes it or not.
Freedom of the people to worship (or not) according to their own choice is as important as freedom of the people from government religion (or the government as a religion).
Freedom to petition the government is freedom of political speech. That is as important as freedom of religion, and vice versa.
Freedom of speech and press buttress freedom of religion and freedom of politics. And freedom of religion buttresses freedom of politics and freedom of speech and press. And freedom of politics buttresses freedom of religion and freedom of speech and press. Each facet of freedom of expression is given equal weight in the First Amendment, and no facet is neatly separable from the rest.
A "press" can be part of a political party. I view the papers Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored to wage their partisan battles as the start of political parties in US. But papers can if they choose claim (may even think that they are not part of a political party, and yet may de facto act as such. Indeed The New York Times and the rest of what wants to be called "objective journalism" does, IMHO, function as part of the Democratic Party. Simply because Democratic politicians do not choose to follow any other principle than to curry PR favor from "objective" journalism.

As a corollary, in some arenas the First Amendment may not even be the most effective legal defense. The idea that Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper may soon be imprisoned for not naming a source is nausea-inducing - especially since the source remains free. (No one is suggesting that Miller and Cooper may have broken the law; the source may well have.) Reporters Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus, both of The Washington Post, were represented by criminal lawyers in the same case and are today going on with their lives, while those who have depended on a First Amendment defense may soon be packing for jail.

The source may have broken the law. Miller and Cooper are protecting the lawbreaker (if such he be) from the law. That makes a mockery of the law.
If Miller and Cooper have the right to do that because they use a printing press, I have the right to do the same thing because I'm a speaker; freedom of speech is not different from freedom of the press. What could be more plain than that the writer is pleading that journalists are priests who have more rights than you or I? What could be more plain than that only the establishment could make such an argument and expect free people to agree with it?
13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did (NY Times Ombudsman Farewell)
NY Times ^ | May 22, 2005 | DANIEL OKRENT