Interesting.
Seems to this American that the "time" was over 140 years ago, and still counting.
First Amendment freedom of the press allows those who know the truth to print the truth provided that they are willing and financially able to do so. And that has undoubtedly been the dominant factor in preserving whatever remains of our democratic republic. In fact, freedom of the press has gradually reduced the abuse of minorities which existed in America as it did anywhere else (indeed, elsewhere those who were not abused were--in gross population of the world still are--in the minority)."When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back."So on the great issue of protection of we-the-people from Saddam-style tyranny, freedom of the press has been a success. On smaller issues, however--even on the protection of freedom of the press itself--the record of the free press is mixed. What freedom of the press could not do--what it forbade the government to attempt--was to assure that those who were willing and financially able to print would know and choose to print the truth.
Unfortunately but inevitably, the big newspapers which survived in the competitive arena did so not by competing on relevance and reliability but by going along and getting along with their competitors. The big newspapers survived and grew by systematically herding together around a concensus which enabled all members to evade responsibility for editorial content. This consensus labeled itself "journalistic objectivity," and produced "codes of journalistic ethics" which sound as wonderful in theory--and are about as relevant to practice--as the old Soviet constitution.
"Objective journalism" was the establishment even before the advent of broadcasting.
Congress long ago presumed to determine--through a "quasi-judicial" (read, "quasi-constitutional') agency--whose "speech" should be promoted "in the public interest." Those who received from that agency the grant of a presumption of veracity/significance have, not surprisingly, exploited it to shamelessly promote themselves.The grant of a presumption of veracity/significance amounts, in the realm of public relations, to a title of nobility. That would have amazed and apalled the framers of the Constitution.
But it was remarkably simple to institute and gain public acceptance for the FCC and its creature, broadcast journalism. After all--apart from the direct and overt involvement of the government in this case--the self-same swindle had already been instituted by private enterprise in the realm of print.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate