Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stevelackner; PGalt
The Amendment was saying that the spoken and written word is to be considered a Constitutionally protected right
I agree with the article, but it seems to me that if you don't agree before you read it, you probably won't understand it and almost certainly won't read it.
Basically the argument as I would put it is that "the press" has been given a meaning by the newspaper industry which differs from the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment. And that the telegraph, and its offshoot the Associated Press, unified the newspaper industry. Now, as Rush would put it, if you miss The New York Times it's OK, you will find the exact same information and attitude expressed in any other major newspaper in the country. Ditto for the radio and TV networks.

The economics of journalism require membership in the wire services, and also require the effective exploitation of that membership. And to do that you have to print reports from reporters who don't work for you and who you don't even know. So you need the public to accept the idea that reporters - all reporters - are objective. When you go "all in" on the idea that journalists are objective, you have just merged yourself into the Borg. And the upshot of that homogenization of the newspaper industry (and of all journalism) is the obliteration of ideological competition within journalism.

The result is that journalism promotes itself - itself and all other professional complainers and critics - with a single voice. And the end point of the promotion of criticism and complaint over actual achievement is socialism. Which puts complainers in charge of getting things done. Since complaining doesn't teach you how to meet a bottom line, they just shift the blame and change the subject.

Anyone who reads and comments on FR will realize that journalism is not objective. That is the only possible result of claiming to actually be objective, since the only way to even try to be objective is to be open and honest about your own motives. And to claim to actually be objective is to deny the very existence of your own motives.


6 posted on 11/17/2011 7:56:48 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: conservatism_IS_compassion; stevelackner; All

Thanks VERY much for the ping/post; post/blog-info/work.

Education/History and comments BUMP!

Fascinating.


7 posted on 11/20/2011 1:15:14 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson