[bleudevil]

Believe me, I know there are incompetent journalists out there. And bad journalists do get fired sometimes. But you don't have to watch or listen to or read journalists you hate. What could the Constitution do about "bad journalists" anyway? That would be like having a Constitutional amendment against bad doctors or bad retail businesses or somethings. If a journalist is incompetent, ignore him and pay attention to his competition.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

you don't have to watch or listen to or read journalists you hate.

You don't literally have to, it's true. But the demagogery of broadcast journalism, in and of itself, constitutes the sort of bad news which constrains people to watch in horrified fascination.

[MarkWar]

>But you don't have to watch or listen to or read journalists you hate.

Tell me something I don't know.

I've made this analogy before, so this will be the condensed version:

Imagine you are a Native American 150 years ago. Imagine you complain to your tribe that the locomotives are making it possible for the Europeans to spread _their_ civilization west and _replace_ your civilization. And imagine one of your own tribe said, "Hey, buddy, if you don't like trains, just don't buy tickets and don't ride on them..."

Do you see my point? We can all choose to "not watch" -- journalists or the media in general. But we _know_ that the vast majority of people are going to be watching this garbage and it will be influencing their thinking/actions. Just as locomotives were the enabling technology (one of them) that made it possible for Europeans to replace the Indians, now media is the enabling technology (one of them) that is making it possible for our civilization to be replaced.

Problems don't go away just because we close our eyes. (I wish they did, but they don't.) Mark W.

[cgbg]

What could the Constitution do about bad journalists?

Ah, but regardless of what you think of the FCC (and I for one would like to see them abolished yesterday) they do regulate broadcasters. They have permitted broadcasters to become left-wing propaganda machines for fifty years.

They could simply require that any broadcast on a regulated carrier claiming to be "news" eliminate all opinions. "News" is who, what, where, when, etc. not political correctness, not adjectives characterizing individuals--just the facts, facts, facts!

It is not that difficult.

Here is an example:

Objective (since you never hear it any more this may prove fascinating :-) ):

Jack Smith and Jill Jones sledded down the hill at 9:45 AM yesterday in Ashtree, Vermont.

Now for the Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc. version.

Right-wing extremist Jack Smith, second cousin of religious extremist John Smith, was seen on a sled with tobacco lobbyist Jill Jones yesterday. Highly placed but unnamed government sources indicate that they were making new plans on how to poison America's children.

[Temple Owl]

If a journalist is incompetent, ignore him and pay attention to his competition.

I agree completely.

[driftless]

That was the probem before Fox News. There was no objective news. The Big Three or Big Liberal Three slanted the news to fit their agenda and simply refused to broadcast the facts that didn't bend to their liberal forge of lies. Believe me, I used to be a liberal too many years ago. I sneered at conservative allegations of liberal media bias and dominance. I was proved wrong and subsequently changed my political affiliation. I now simply cannot believe the words coming out of the mouth of anyone who describes him or herself as a liberal.

That doesn't mean that I think all liberals are liars or that they don't occasionally tell the truth. And I don't believe conservatives are correct all the time either. But liberals not only lie, they refuse to admit the truth when caught in lies.

Bernard Goldberg should be given a medal for telling the world what has been obvious to conservatives for many years. Big Media has had a liberal slant and agenda for fifty years or more. For Gods sake look at the photo of Dan Rather with his arm around Fidel Castro for crying out loud. But their time may be up, they have been found out. They cannot lie and mislead with impunity anymore. And it will only get worse for them.

[RinaseaofDs]

I agree. The marketplace is dealing with bad journalism as we speak.

[JasonC]

The objection is to federal licensing and regulation of users of airwaves. I don't think it is particularly well formulated, but the notion that we simply have a free market in the matter is wide of the mark, empirically. You can't set up your own radio station and say what you please.