[Alberta's Child]

The press requires the protections of the First Amendment because it could never survive legal challenge without it.

Baloney. I guess the Wall Street Journal has to take this approach because it is a media outlet, but there is no First Amendment protection for "the press" above and beyond that which is afforded to every American citizen.

[Wristpin]

Schumer and the Dems were pushing hard for a Federal Shield Law protecting reporters a few months ago. This is exactly why it must be squashed. They don't merit "special rights".

[Eric in the Ozarks]

And there shouldn't be.

[Bernard Marx]

there is no First Amendment protection for "the press" above and beyond that which is afforded to every American citizen.

Precisely. And that's why the notion of a federal shield law is insane -- it's like giving the media a license to lie and engage in systematic partisan warfare.

[Wolfstar]

...but there is no First Amendment protection for "the press" above and beyond that which is afforded to every American citizen.

Well, there is, but only in a limited way. Here's the First Amendment in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press. "Abridge" in this context means to deprive or reduce. In other words, Congress can't make laws to shut down the press (media in our times). That's it. Although, it has been stretched by the courts almost beyond recognition, the First Admendment does not absolve the media of their responsibilities as citizens.

Reporters (and news corporations) can be sued, can be made to testify in court, and their actions should be honest enough to survive a legal challenge, with or without invoking the First Amendment.