Replies

Quote yours:
1) The First Amendment favors individual responsibility to identify the truth even if someone is lying to you. Even, indeed, if most people are lying to you. Which is what we get when CBS lies about the so-called "Texas Air National Guard Memos" - and all the rest of "objective" journalism played dumb instead of savaging 60 Minutes for running with the fraudulent "memos."

Exactly my point: That is why reporters need to be educationally qualified by a State Board Program, just like other professionals are. And they need to have a canon of ethics, and they need to be licensed, with a review board for professional misconduct.This simply codifies 1st amendment responsibility as a quit pro quo for 1st amendment protection.

Quote yours 2) People who assume that anyone is objective because they say they are objective are suckers.

This is a self evident truth, yet other professionals who are licensed in our society, such as attorneys, police officers, real estate agents,and many others,are required professionally to
base what facts THEY use on corroborated truth. If a reasonably professional effort is made at corroboration, responsibility to find the truth is fulfilled.

That is why we freepers need to lobby for this type of statutory regime, because a democratic republic cannot continue to exist when the public masses are misinformed because of spin, propaganda and disinformation, on issues which influence voting patterns toward a socially engineered society, that we are currently experiencing from a misapplied left wing culture and judiciary. MAKE THE REPORTERS STAUTORILY AND PROFESSIONALLY RESPONSIBLE AS QUALIFIED LISCENCED INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SURE THAT 1st AMENDMENT RESPONSIBILILITY IS DISCHARGED OR THEY LOSE THEIR LISCENCE OR ARE SUSPENDABLE. USE THE LAW THE WAY DIMS ARE MISUSING IT RIGHT NOW IN THE EARLE AND DELAY CASES.

Exactly my point: That is why reporters need to be educationally qualified by a State Board Program, just like other professionals are.

Feh! For starters, to use reporters in the same sentence as professionals is patently absurd. It would be like demanding licenses for carnival barkers, who serve essentially the same function. I've dealt with "professional" types most of my working life and I'll tell you, I can count on one hand the number of lawyers I'd buy a cup of coffer for. Furthermore, they are paid to massage the truth to their clients' advantage instead of find and impart the truth. Sound familiar?

Realtors? I spent 20+ years working around the real estate business with similar observations. Now, it may just be peculiar to these two "professions", but I don't know of a single time one of these professionals was censured or anything else. I believe cIc is right, the regulators end up in the pockets of the regulated.

That is why we freepers need to lobby for this type of statutory regime...

While your desire to clean up the MSM is admirable, I think I'll pass on this lobbying effort. The one question, if answered, that might shed some light on the problem of socialist leaning MSM, where is the conservative media. Where are our cheerleaders?

I really short-sheeted my post because company just arrived, so this will have to do for now...

FGS

MAKE THE REPORTERS STAUTORILY AND PROFESSIONALLY RESPONSIBLE AS QUALIFIED LISCENCED INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SURE THAT 1st AMENDMENT RESPONSIBILILITY IS DISCHARGED

The First Amendment says I have freedom of religion. Does that mean I have to go to synagogue on Saturday and chuch on Sunday? No, it means that I can follow my own conscience.
The First Amendment says I have freedom to assemble and to petition the government. Does that mean that I have to go to Washington and carry a sign around? No, it means that I can go if I want, or not - just as I please.
The First Amendment says I have freedom of speech. Does that mean I have no right to shut up? No, I can talk or not, whether it suits any governmenal authority or not.
Likewise the First Amendment says that I have freedom of the press. Does that mean that I have to report everything that you think important? No, it means that I can print if I wanna, or not, if I wanna. And the same thing holds true for the owner of The New York Times. You can't improve on the First Amendment, and if you try you will make things worse.