Replies

The media is absolutely full of people with big egos who want to ‘make a mark on the world’, and generally had no other venue or outlet in which to pursue this self-centered mission. They are often very cutthroat in this pursuit, and their behaviors are in stark contradiction to the ‘egalitarian’ ‘tolerant’ inclusive’ world view they so superficially embrace and virtue signal with.

The media have hurt many, many people in society, and both rationalize and justify their irresponsible and dangerous behaviors by invoking the first amendment - all the while trampling on the rights of others, ruining lives, and supporting suppression of the first amendment rights of those they disagree with.

They have propagated hatred against many, but now cry foul as they are criticized in society. No one is advocating for violence against journalists. Many are, however, advocating for a ‘redo’ of the media, with a focus on truth and neutrality. They have applauded the ‘reform’ of so many things and professions in society, but now balk when it has become irrefutably clear that it is way past time for reform of their vehicle for stature and relevancy.

Establishment journalists, like judges (I’m looking at Justice Roberts, but also at the SCOTUS “injunction” in Bush v. Gore against using the fact that SCOTUS found that the Supreme Court of Florida had been cooking the books for Gore as precedent for the proposition that sometimes courts are not objective), affect to believe their professional colleagues to be objective, no matter what. The First Amendment does not aim to create a journalism establishment; to the contrary it aims to keep members of the press independent. 1A explicitly, of course, makes journalists independent of government - but then, the authors of 1A had no example of the sort of non-governmental monopoly journalism which arose in the mid-Nineteenth Century.

Amendment 1:
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.

does not establish a ceiling over the rights of the people. Rather, as

Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.
Since the people had independent newspaper printers at the time of the ratification of 1A, and 1A intended to keep that situation, I argue that the people had (and we still have) a right to independent newspaper printers (and speakers) - and that a law against monopoly which was valid to break up Standard Oil is valid to break up a journalism monopoly. And that the First Amendment is not a defense against a suit under the Sherman AntiTrust Act against monopoly journalism.
What is the monopoly which transformed journalism in the second half of the Nineteenth Century? The Associated Press. Why? Because the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major journalism in America. And because
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
It is naive in the extreme to assume that, in over a century and a half, journalists have never found any incentive to practice on the credulity of the public. They have - and they do so precisely by posturing as objective when in fact they are knowingly negative. Anyone who thinks “negativity is objectivity” is a cynic.