The Separation of Press and State

1440 KEYS AM Radio ^ | June 23, 2006 | Jenni Vinson Trejo

[beyond the sea]

This is a great article.

[beyond the sea]

"When it comes to the release of Classified information during a time of war, the NY Times and their associates within the elite media are about to (be) hauled before the Supreme Court. --- we'll see.

"a reporter may well be tried for espionage in the near future" --- I cannot wait.

[wildcatf4f3]

There can be more shilohs and gettysbergs

[rottndog]

What the Founding Fathers envisioned was a Press that was completely independent of politics and not beholden to such interests.

They naively thought the same thing about judges.

[penelopesire]

Bravo!!

[maine-iac7]

the NY Times and their associates within the elite media are about to hauled before the Supreme Court.

I pray so - but ? source?

[Chena]

Excellent article, jennivinson! BTTT!

[DakotaGator]

Great assessment! Thanks for the post.

I maintain that the MSM has failed in its Constitutional role. Yes. It is independent of the government. But is no longer an impartial entity.

The MSM aids and abets a specific political point of view. It is an advocate of and accessory to liberal-Democrat-socialist-communist activities. It does so to the exclusion of facts while trumpeting itself as highly ethical and balanced (another flawed but noble sounding concept).

In pursuing its liberal-Democrat-socialist-communist agenda the MSM skates perilously close to sedition and treason! It is well past time that its corporations and individuals be prosecuted for libel and espionage.

Freedom of the press does not equate to freedom from responsibility or accountability!

[Paperdoll]

>They naively thought the same thing about judges.<

And the Commies could see all this so clearly. Take over the schools and libraries, take over the press, take over the judiciary and they are to third base. Be careful, America - don't let 'em steal home!

[George - the Other]

Damn, only is this a great piece, she also talk about jazz legend Sonny Rollins.

I often feel so isolated as one of the few conservative composer/performer/artists out there. A genuinely creative and intelligent person with and IQ of over 150 and creator of over 500 pieces of music (mostly jazz) hundreds of paintings and scads of essays and other written pieces.

I could find no way way of contacting her. Did I miss something? I would appreciate an email address for Jenni.

George

[Theresawithanh]

Great article! Mega BUMP.

[Theresawithanh]

Great article! Mega BUMP.

[jennivinson]

Editorial Supposition on my part sorry for that. I should have been more clear on it. I base it on the press's judicial loss on the question of divulging sources (in the Valerie Plame case).

The Bush administration would be amiss if they didn't call the MSM on the carpet on these leaks. The only thing that would possibly hold them back would be NOT wanting to erode the powers of the press. They've gone too far and really do need a Constitutional reality check.-- Jenni

[jennivinson]

Thanks George! Sonny Rollins is a hero of mine. I was blessed to be a part of an interview with him. It's on my webpage in it's entirety. ( http://www.jvteditorials.com )
He was in Manhattan the day of 9-11. He is a sage, kind man. We could all learn from him.
You can reach me at jvteditorials@stx.rr.com

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"This is a great article."

it sure is. but I'll bet that before the sunday talking-heads are through tomorrow we will hear the (new?) "Separation of Press and State" catchy phrase a bunch of times and with a mythical meaning, far afield from what this writer intended. Hell, by NEXT weekend it may well be morphed into yet another (imagined) "constitutional" principle....

[M. Dodge Thomas]

“What the Founding Fathers envisioned was a Press that was completely independent of politics and not beholden to such interests…”

No one with who had bothered to actually study late eighteenth and early nineteenth century US political history would be ignorant enough to make such a statement.

The press of the Revolutionary period and the early Republic was often highly partisan and usually strongly aligned with political faction, so much so that the printer’s workshop was often the local party headquarters.

See, for example "The Tyranny of Printers: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (Jeffersonian America)"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813920302/ref=ase_pasleybrothersco/104-7378546-4556717?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=pasleybrothersco

for accounts of such early "dirty tricks" as Thomas Jefferson's involvement in an attempted "cover-up" when a scheme to manipulate newspaper coverage of Alexander Hamilton was exposed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

America was also premised on the idea that the nation would fair well with an open, honest and unfettered Press.

The "honest" part is journalistic propaganda having no basis in the First Amendment. Nothing in the First Amendment gives any basis for the belief that journalism would be honest, and Jefferson and Hamilton sponsored newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles. That is the model for freedom of the press.

The problem is not tendentiousness in journalism; that was old in Jefferson's time. The problem is the naivete of the public which buys into the con that journalism is objective because journalism says it is objective. The other problem of journalism is government-licensed (obviously therefore unconstitutional) journalism. I have reference of course to broadcasting, which could not exist without censorship to enable licensees to be heard over long distances.

Journalism has been seized upon by broadcast licensees as an excuse for their existence as government-licensed, government-favored entities. The trouble was, of course, that objectivity is not readily defined (except in a retrospective view in the light of history). So what could broadcast journalism do but mimic unlicensed journalism? Hence we see broadcast journalism parroting The New York Times.

The conceit of journalistic "objectivity" is sustained not only by the need of broadcasting to propagandize about the "need" for "objectivity" which they provide (or at least make a pretense of providing while merely mimicking The Times) but by the willingness of journalists to go along and get along instead of competing for the respect of the public. If all go along, all get along and all are putatively "objective;" the alternative would be for persistent flame wars. Thus we see flame wars only between the institutions of "objective journalism" on the one hand and of "conservative talk radio" on the other.

Since objectivity is a virtue and it is arrogant to argue from the assumption that you have a virtue, frankly "conservative" commentators actually have the moral high ground in their positioning. For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and sophistry, that is . . .

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

ping

[CGVet58]

"...The problem is not tendentiousness in journalism; that was old in Jefferson's time. The problem is the naivete of the public which buys into the con that journalism is objective because journalism says it is objective..."

Bingo!

The Fathers were wise beyond what mere men could hope for - your elegant statement hits the mark perfectly, and begs the obvious conclusion: only a well-informed citizenry whom are mindful of their nation can be the best guarantor of Freedom.

And that, my friend - as you and we know all too painfully well - is where can be found our Achilles Heel.