[G.Mason]

Though I tend to agree with your post reply #5, [with he exception of ".......and are about as relevant to practice--as the old Soviet constitution........ " , which I have no knowledge of ] you confuse me.

Just why did you direct that at me?

I simply replied to a segment [last sentence of the article] which said ......."When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back." , and indicated that that "time" was over 140 years ago.

I appologize in advance for this confusion on my part.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Though I tend to agree with your post reply #5, [with he exception of ".......and are about as relevant to practice--as the old Soviet constitution........ " , which I have no knowledge of ] you confuse me.

Just why did you direct that at me?

Well, as to the last, I picked up on the text you quoted from the article as a starting point, and I confess that my comment is not pointed at you in any other sense than that.

As to the relevance of codes of journalistic ethics, that is a long and much-vexed subject. And one on which I have such strong opinions as to be quite likely to pass Rush Limbaugh's "kook test" with flying colors.

The development of my understanding of the freedom of speech/press issue over the past 2 years since 9/11 is chronicled on a Free Republic thread here (all bumps gratefully accepted).

I think I demonstrate in that thread that journalism can have a hard left rudder without violating a code of "objectivity." And that that is systematically done, for fun and profit. If such be the case, why would I be impressed by codes of ethics? (BTW, one of the responses in the thread links to a number of such codes).