[Vanity]: The "Press" does not have any special Constitutional rights

1/16/17

[Maceman]

I was just watching Shepard Smith interviewing someone from the Wall Street Journal about the possibility that the Trump administration may expand the White House press area to include people from outside the mainstream "Press."

They were essentially in agreement with the idea that "The Press" is a Constitutionally recognized "institution" charged with making sure that the President can be properly questioned on behalf of the public.

They expressed concern that Trump might use the expansion of the press room to avoid answering "tough" questions by the "Professional Press," and instead only take softball questions from those renegade interlopers who might lack the "professional credibility" to make the needed "tough" inquiries.

I know we are going to hear this ridiculous complaint a lot from the media now, and I think we need to put a stop once and for all to the idea that "The Press" has some sort of special Constitutional privilege that allows it particular political access.

The fact is that from a Consitutional perspective, there is no such thing as "The Press" in the sense of being a "professional" elite group whose members are allowed preferential treatment under law.

In the Constitutional sense, “the press” is a technological device for disseminating information. One cannot be a “member” of the press. One can only have ownership of, or access to, a press.

An originalist interpretation of the Constitution would be that any device or vehicle which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset printing, TV, radio, or the Internet.

"Freedom of the press" means that we all have the right to own a press or pay any provider who wishes to sell us access to a device or vehicle through which we citizens can freely publicize our ideas.

In this regard, no CNN or CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of "The Press" than does any blogger, or any Internet user who posts on Facebook or any other website.

"Freedom of the press" applies equally to every citizen seeking to use a technological device to record and publicize his or her opinion.

Even Ben Carson fell for the incorrect idea that "The Press" is some type of special institution in a recent TV interview where he said: “There is only one business in America that is protected by the Constitution, and that is the press. They were supposed to expose and inform the people in a non-partisan way. . . ."

It's time that American citizens reject this ridiculous and dangerous idea that the so-called "Professional Media" are due any special legal deference. The disastrous and destructive state of the current professional elitist MSM is the predictable result of such a crazy, self-serving misinterpretation of a fundamental Constitutional right.

I hope that the Trump administration and its supporters will make this point loudly, clearly and often in responding to leftist MSM complaints about White House policies regarding "Press" access.

[Qiviut]

From Wiki (White House press corps): The White House Press Secretary or a deputy generally holds a weekday news briefing, which takes place in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. The room currently seats 49 reporters. Each seat is assigned to one news gathering organization, with the most prominent organizations occupying the first two rows. Reporters who don't have an assigned seat may stand. Often a smaller group of reporters known as the White House press pool is assembled to report back to their colleagues on events where the venue would make open coverage logistically difficult

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is one reason why the move "might" be made to another building to a venue that could accomodate 400 or more of the "press" including bloggers, etc. Newt Gingrich said just the other night that the back of the elite media cabal needs to be broken. The daily briefings should also not be televised ... Mara Liasson said today that some reporters would not attend if they weren't televised (she's not one of them). Ari Fleishcher, Laura Ingraham said that the briefings have become a daily show for the cameras ... there are serious print reporters who would like to ask serious questions, but the network folks wants 'face' time. LOTS could be done to curb the enemedia/presstitutes .... I suspect that as disrespectful as they've been to Trump & considering all the fake news they've been making up/spouting, that changes will occur.

Something I saw recently that cracked me up: The "beatings tweeting will continue until morale improves" :-)

[Rennes Templar]

I’d love to see the CNNers way in the back, shouting questions, trying to get attention.

[WMarshal]

Great post that really cuts to the core of the issue. Freedom of the press is an individual right. Thanks.

[FreeReign]

...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;....

Similar to the way "freedom of speech" in the Constitution refers to the freedom of the spoken word, freedom of the "press", simply means the freedom of the written word.

And that's a freedom for all individuals and not just some man made group such as a professional news organization.

[FreeReign]

I was just watching Shepard Smith... That's your first problem.

As if the poster has another problem?

Maceman's post is right on target.

[abb]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/665.html

United States Supreme Court
BRANZBURG v. HAYES, (1972)
No. 70-85
Argued: February 23, 1972 Decided: June 29, 1972

“Until now the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.”

[abb]

White: "We are unwilling to embark the judiciary on a long and difficult journey to such an uncertain destination. The administration of a constitutional newsman's privilege would present practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order. Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.... The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow of information to the public, that he relies on confidential sources of information, and that these sources will be silenced if he is forced to make disclosures before a grand jury.

[DaveA37]

Speaking of the “press”..... “They honestly think they are a part of the government”.....

Indeed they do, so where is their beef? Numerous government departments are lodged all over DC. Send the whining snobbish bastards to some distant corner of a government owned warehouse in a far corner of the District and let them whine all they want. there are consequences for their dishonesty and now is the time to bring them into line. Gotta love Trump, he plays hard ball.

[DoodleDawg]

Freedom of the press is defined in the Constitution. What constitutes “the press” is not. Trump can expand the press pool to include anyone with a blog and every high school newspaper in the country and there is nothing to say that he is wrong to do so.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your take on it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“Seems to me “the press” is a generic term meaning anyone that publishes information/news outside of a book or magazine.”

More generally, it is IMHO the right of the people to be someone who publishes information in any format.

Journalists promote the idea that they, and they alone, constitute “the press.” In reality when journalists think of the press they mean the Associated Press and its membership. That is an arrogant, elitist view in which they consider themselves to be, essentially, an established priesthood above comparison with bloggers.

The AP newswire is their god - but today, the Internet has vastly more bandwidth than the AP does.

[grumpygresh]

Shemp needs to go on assignment investigating the trail of Barry’s bath houses.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Great post.

[IronJack]

The rights of the Press are spelled out in plain English in the First Amendment. No more, no less.

There is nothing in there about free and unfettered access to any governmental official. There is no right to pontificate and lie with impunity. There is no setting the whores up as a separate, preferred class with special distinctions and privileges.

The First simply prohibits Congress from making laws that would restrict the freedom of the press. That's all.

[abb]

It’s also settled law.

[Gene Eric]

>> Seems to me “the press” ...

Relating to the printing press which was often a quasi-underground operation during the Revolutionary period.

[goldbux]

* * *

[Gene Eric]

On the other hand, the MSM is the equivalent of the Queen’s propaganda arm.

[Political Junkie Too]

Remembering that the Bill of Rights is about the rights of individual people, the right of a free press means that the people are free to publish without government interference, like posting pamphlets on a town bulletin board. It does not mean that the New York Times or the Washington Post is guaranteed to exist in perpetuity.

-PJ

[Paine in the Neck]

The Constitutional provision in 1A prohibiting Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of the press” indeed, does apply to everyone. The freedom to publish, which is what is meant, is a freedom that every American enjoys. It does not inhere only, and especially not exclusively, to professional journalists. They are not a sacred caste.