Posted on 10/12/2016 7:59:37 PM PDT by After Hours
Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as a means to prevent the government from interfering with the distribution of information and opinions. Nonetheless, freedom of the press is subject to certain restrictions, such as the defamation law.
Contents [hide]
Clearly, our constitution provided the press /media with certain rights and privileges.
Given the news/media these past few days, i.e., NBC, etc., perhaps we should consider an amendment to protect us FROM the press.
I don't think the Constitution intended that the press would have the freedom, without penalty and without oversight, to manipulate,coerce, coordinate and dictate the outcome of our elections.
The thought that powerful news organizations such as NBC would hold and timely release news articles that is negative (or even positive) to influence our elections is pretty scary.
Is there a remedy here on the part of the Trump campaign?
One alternative remedy would be—through clandestine means—to convince some in the press to turn.
The MSM is the Country’s greatest threat, and is the antithesis of the 1st Amendment.
>> My first post
Welcome to FR, noob /s
We aew the new press.
Wikileaks. 4chan. Hackers. Slackers. Troll poatersa.
We control the narrative.
Aordnwill get out.
This election will be won by citizen journalists.
We are the reporters now.
We area legion.
Welcome to the revolution.
There has to be reasonable limits to presstitute freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. An irresponsible media is the enemy. Not constitutional.
“Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as a means to prevent the government from interfering with the distribution of information and opinions.”
Hahahaha.....
Oh, thank you for that. I needed a good laugh.
Er, no... the Constitution does not provide individuals or the press with rights and privileges. Individuals are born with these rights. The first amendment restricts government from stripping us of these rights.
No.
Exactly- citizens, exercising their freedom of speech, are the press.
Any press, even our one sided MSM, is limited by the intelligence and vigilance of the populace.
Our problem is not too much freedom of the press but rather, the laziness and gullibility of the voting population.
They don’t have control over the Internet. That’s what they will try next.
And that’s why all the hackers are all out to stop Hillary.
It took me ten years to post my first thread: on spring lawn mower maintenance and repair.
Think about it.
A brief history: In the beginning, uh, wait... From the outset; from the early days of the republic, there were competing "medias". And up until recent times(well, say as recent as the 70's, maybe 80's) there were news(sic)papers that identified themselves with the various parties. Primarily Dim and Pubbie. Still a few around. Every large and many medium sized metro areas had at least two fishwraps; each banging the drum for their "party". So, the question that needs to be asked is, what happened to the conservative "media"? Why did the liberal media prevail?
As a practical matter, between now and election day, nothing can be done except to threaten a libel suit.The fundamental fact is that wire service journalism - founded initially with the AP (initially in 1848 the New York Associated Press) - homogenizes journalism.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsHence, my tagline. Why is journalism coherently “liberal*?” Because journalism knowingly is negative (If it bleeds, it leads) - and yet journalism also claims that all journalists are objective. Well, which is it - negativity or objectivity? The answer is that both are true -to a cynic. And “liberalism” is cynicism. Cynicism about American society, combined with naivete toward government.SOME writers [read (in modern parlance), “liberals"] have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.“Liberalism,” as currently defined, is precisely what Thomas Paine was arguing against in 1776.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . .
Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
* My use of the scare quotes refers to the fact that the meaning of the word was changed - essentially inverted - in the 1920s (source: Safire’s New Political Dictionary)
Good stuff as usual cIc. I’ve never been able to find a plausible explanation to the question of what happened to the “conservative” media; fishwraps in particular. Did “yellow” journalism make a contribution in some way? Did the mix of (professed)readership/advertisers play a part? Since ads pay the bills, what are the odds of collusion between fishy fishwraps and major advertisers? Was “conservative” media too straight laced to play the sensationalism game? The answers are out there....somewhere.
You know my position; journalism inherently sells bad news. Bad news naturally casts doubt on how well society works. Cast doubt on how society works, and the implication is always that government should fix it.That is bad enough, but the wire services put pressure on all newspapers to conform. So any paper that goes against the flow is disadvantaged - and falls into line eventually. The problem fundamentally is that journalism is superficial (deadlines guarantee that), and so conservatism cannot get a fair shake in journalism. Rush Limbaugh et. al. are frankly conservative, and they are the closest thing we get to “conservative journalism.” But they are open about being conservative, and that leads to their being marginalized by sophists who claim to be objective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.