[DBrow]

My question was, who gave the MSM the role of "watchdog"- why is it their role and who gave it to them?

In thinking about it, I came up with this:

Sometime in the recent past, the media decided to become politically active (I"d suggest about the time the communists took over the democrat party). They needed justification to do this, to assume the mantle of authority. So they turned to the first amendment to the constitution and used that as justification for being the Fourth Branch of Government (after all it's in the constitution!)

Thirty, forty years of propaganda, top secret leaks, and special privileges earned in court awards, and now they try to tell us that their Constitutional Role in the United States is (reverb on) Watchdog Of Democracy (end reverb).

But, ALL the other roles, all of the powers granted in the constitution, are granted to specific offices and the people who fill the offices. Each office is defined, is limited in membership, and the process to get that office is spelled out (appointment by an appointed college for President, direct election for House, now we directly vote for Senator (but they used to be appointed by State legislature), the Executive Branch nominates judges and the Senate approves). There is a specific balance of power.

I declare that the media, the "journalists", have NO constitutional role in the Federal Government because the constitution does not define who is a journalist (or Talking Head or pundit) beyond the guarantee that congress shall make no law abridging their right to free speech (which we all have) and to go beyond mere speech, printing and publishing freedom is specifically spelled out. As Dan Rather found out the Pajamahadeen have as much right as he does to speak to the masses. If the press had a place at the table there would be a specific balance beyond mere libel laws.

As for a Watchdog Role it simply does not exist.

The role of the journalist is not to tell us what "is" really means, that oral sex is not sex, that oak trees are not trees, and that Halliburton's Bush contracts are immoral but Clinton's are OK, that if one president asserts WMD in Iraq it's brilliant but if it's another president it's a lie.

They are there to make bucks for the paper owner, which might explain why the MSM is in so much trouble now with money and readership and all.

[Milhous]

cutting newsroom staffs to the point that journalism's watchdog role is in danger.

Hyperbole aside the constitutionally protected Free Republic watchdog role can easily fill any void created by journalism™ layoffs.

[ForGod'sSake]

Sometime in the recent past, the media decided to become politically active...

I think if you do some looking around you'll find that much of the original purpose of pamphleteers/newspapers was as carnival barkers for one political party/cause or another. Any political group that had any resources at all published their own "propaganda". Even Thomas Jefferson(amongst others) had some unkind words for the media of the day.

I like this one by one of our best wordsmiths ever, Mark Twain:

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.

Anyhow, somewhere along the way(50's - 60's??) the leftist newspapers/message began to pull away from their conservative competitors. Apparently, they never looked back. How and why that happened is a mystery to many -- mostly on our side. The would-be serfs on the other side could care less what's in the newspapers; they don't read 'em anyway...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the "journalists", have NO constitutional role in the Federal Government because the constitution does not define who is a journalist (or Talking Head or pundit) beyond the guarantee that congress shall make no law abridging their right to free speech (which we all have) and to go beyond mere speech, printing and publishing freedom is specifically spelled out. As Dan Rather found out the Pajamahadeen have as much right as he does to speak to the masses. If the press had a place at the table there would be a specific balance beyond mere libel laws.

Agreed. The conceit that journalism is objective is supported only by, and supported by no less than, a massive propaganda campaign by journalism and fellow travelers thereof. "Fellow travelers" of journalism? Yes, because Objective Journalism^TM is best understood as a political party, and "liberals," "progressives," "centrists," and "moderates" are all mere labels for people whose political attitudes qualify them to be journalists but who do not actually have a job in journalism. And "objective" is the label reserved by journalists for journalists alone.

Notice if you will that all the above labels are virtues. Moderation is a classical virtue, and objectivity is a near synonym for another classical virtue, wisdom. Centrism is a near synonym for moderation. And "liberal" and "progressive" are American virtues. And to the extent that progress is an American virtue, conservatism - the label assigned to opponents of the Objective Journalism^TM party - is a vice.

There is a remarkable symmetry between the Objective Journalism^TM party and the classical Sophists. Sophists argued from the assumption of their own wisdom (indeed the Greek "soph" meant "wisdom"). Their logic went something like this:

1. I am wise.
2. You are not wise.
3. Therefore you are wrong and I am right. QED.

The philosophical school reacted to that sophistry by saying that it is arrogant to argue from the assumption of your own virtue, and they did not call themselves wise but lovers of wisdom (philo = love, sophy = of wisdom). Just so we must insist on, as Rush puts it, "a relentless pursuit of the truth." We resist the propaganda pressure from Objective Journalism^TM to cow at the claim that journalists are above the people.

"The people," as the Constitution refers to us, have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. At this point in history every Tom, Dick, and Harry can exercise not only freedom of speech but freedom of the press by use of their computer. Journalists refer to themselves as "the press" as a way of conflating journalism and "the press." But not only is journalism a mere subset of "the press" (which includes book and magazine publishing and, in modern circumstances, Freeping), not all journalists have freedom of the press. Absurd, you will say? Well, just try to transmit a news report on the radio waves without a license, and see where it gets you. Broadcasting is a creature of government, and specifically of government censorship. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the case.

I developed this perspective over the years since the Carter Administration, when I first was introduced to the radical notion of "bias in the media." You probably would be interested in my long-running thread,

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate