See ya!
In the Land of the Free, news media are not required to demonstrate "patriotism." If that's what you'd prefer, you might be more comfortable in China.
Out of curiosity Clown, do you prefer China?
Welcome to Free Republic?
Yes, the founder of Free Republic would be more comfortable in China than in the US, your resurgent trollness.
"Neutrality" would be preferable. Not outright hostility toward the country. Got it, Bozo?
New Troll are we! ZOT him mods!
Ah, it's bad form to enter someone's house and immediately insult the host. But something tells me you're not long on manners to begin with. Why am I not surprised?
See ya!
Patriotism is indeed required by any news outlet before I will give them any attention. And I am not alone in this. More and more people are saying "why don't they cheer for our side?"
Ever wonder why the media is becoming a national joke with ratings that are in the toilet?
It's called the free market.
They can demonstrate patriotism or I will do my level best to put them out of business.
That is the wonderful part about the land of the free although I am sure you don't see it that way.
I am sure you prefer Zimbabwe
But, in your warped little world, they are required to root for the enemy, huh?
Go back to DU, ya filthy Moby ass nugget.
They don't have to demonstrate patriotism, but not actively aiding and abetting the "people" we are fighting would be the honorable thing to do, though I'm sure the concept of honor is lost on everyone in the MSM.
The First Amendment traditionally meant that newspapers were free from prior restraint. If you wish to start a newspaper, the government doesn't have constitutional authority to impede your doing so.It is little noted, however, that broadcast journalism - indeed all broadcasting - is subject to government regulation. If you doubt that, just try broadcasting without a license and see what the FCC and the police do!
The First Amendment speaks of a right to print and a right to speak, and only by implication of a right to read or listen. Broadcasting regulation, OTOH, speaks of the right to hear - and the duty to shut up. Whether or not you remain a registered FR poster, Jingo, you have IMHO a constitutional right to post on the Internet -tho you might need to create your own web site to do so. And whether anyone pays attention to your posting or not is not a question the First Amendment addresses; it's up to you to make your posting interesting and relevant.
Since there is no reason you cannot communicate via the Internet on equal terms with anyone else, the internet is a constitutionally superior venue to the broadcast band. There is no reason why CBS should have the right to broadcast nationwide if you or I do not; the licenses the government gives CBS are essentially illegitimate titles of nobility. And I see no reason why the renewal of those licenses should be granted to systematically anti patriotic broadcasters.
In the Land of the Free, news media enjoy a degree of freedom unparalleled in most of the free world, let alone the unfree world. In the Land of the Free, the news media's very right to exist has been expressly guaranteed in our basic law. If uncritical patriotism is too much to ask of them (and it probably is), an manner toward that public trust, and the facts, that is more respectful than "fast-food, slick-ass, Persian bazaar" is not.
During WWII the press witheld (often by request from the War Department) all sorts of bad news. We WERE!!! fighting a war. If they had harmed the war effort, I expect they would have been put on trial for treason. Patriotism means many things above all it means NOT HARMING YOUR COUNTRY!!! Understand? You can question your governments decisions and still be patriotic. That means you can disagree with the war and still be a patriot. It does not mean you can stab your country in the back.
"In the Land of the Free, news media are not required to demonstrate "patriotism." "
True, but they are required to not commit treason. Yes, I know, you disagree with that as well. Small brain.