"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Fri Nov 1, 2013, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

It's always been interesting to me that freedom of the press is not just part of our Constitution, it's in the very first amendment. The Founders were apparently pretty serious about the importance of the press's function in a free society, and added no ifs, ands, nor buts.

The word the Founders used in the amendment, abridging, is also interesting. Abridge a much brighter line than, say, the word freedom -- Abridge means to diminish in any way.

So it's pretty clear, at least to me, that it was a first principle of our Founders that the press should not be interfered with. End of story.

Today, the very government that's charged with upholding the Constitution is working hard to dramatically tamp down the press's ability to work freely. The press is being investigated, accused, and harassed, e.g.:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-13/world/39226618_1_classified-information-obama-administration-justice-department
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/james-rosen-justice-department-co-conspirator-obama_n_3305857.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/us/prosecutors-press-subpoena-for-times-reporter-in-leak-case.html?_r=0

for simply doing their jobs. They are being spied on, probably to a far-greater extent than we know about. And now the head of the NSA, Starfleet Commander Keith Alexander, is calling for the press to be stopped from telling us what it knows about the staggering Spy On Everyone program.

According to Reporters Without Borders, the US ranks 32nd in the world on the ability of our press to do its job:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

This is a sad state of affairs, and I don't see signs that it's going in the right direction. My hope is that the current NSA revelations will serve to shock Americans into a clear vision of what's happening to our civil liberties, and to coalesce us around the goal of ending the authoritarian cancer that's been sweeping our government for years.

There are many things we Americans must rebuild in the coming years. Among these, I hope that we can rebuild our government's respect for the job of the press, as envisioned by our founders and set into law.

Regards,

First-Way Manny

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. We know of some things that they are doing. It's also worth Googling "Operation Mockingbird."

They say that it was discontinued.

But if you wonder why the MSM gives us Bill O'Reilly, the Sunday morning talking heads, and others with propaganda agendas, Operation Mockingbird is worth looking into.

[rock]

2. Nevertheless the Press should not be allowed to lie

They may make mistakes and get things wrong, but to willfully tell an untruth really goes against the grain.

[FirstLight]

5. look,

I know that there are some really bad examples of reporters out there on the TV, but to make it sound like ALL journalists lie is an affront to the profession. There's this thing called a 'Code of Ethics' and we use it much like a Dr. swears the Hippocratic Oath...
As someone who worked at a daily and as a freelancer for 15+ years, I have known plenty of journalists and every one of them has gone out of their way to tell the TRUTH in their stories, because it is what we are charged with as the Fourth Estate. We have to tell the truth to the public - it's about keeping people informed as much as it is about credibility.
thanks.

[rock]

7. Then they should have no problem with my proposal

and, in fact, embrace it. Please also note that I did not make an accusation in my post. It is a fact that they, like politicians, can lie with impunity (unless under oath).

[hueymahl]

9. What is your proposal?

[rock]

24. Make it illegal for News organizations to publish falsehoods

Same as it was pre-Reagan.

[SunSeeker]

10. If they lie they are not the Press, they are propagandists. nt

[FirstLight]

15. ding!

...and even so, that's what free press is to some extent, the *people* are supposed to be smart enough to know the difference and a true Journalist who claims that title will more often than not adhere to a Code of Ethics, either personally, or as condition of working with their organization/publication

[Scuba]

3. Not to mention legally defining "journalist". We ARE the evil empire.

[FirstLight]

4. oh, Manny...

you are after my own heart with this one!

I am and have been a Journalist for over 15 years and I am just apalled at what is going on to silence the real press in this country. The stories you mention above are really telling...It makes me believe that nothing is safe anymore, not notes, phone calls or emails...even without a warrant, they are gathering the info, be sure of that.

I am currently back in school to finish my actual BA (because experience means squat these days) and am taking a Journalism Law class right now. My final paper is all about the Reporter's Privilege and the right to protect a source... that right is fading fast. I have followed the Risen story for a while now and one of the most shocking pieces of the story is that while all of this was in appeals court, back in 2010 the DOJ (without a warrant) obtained Risen's phone records, bank account info and airline activity...all as part of their "case" against the CIA agent. THAT is a total violation of privacy and rights - Risen is just a witness....so why are they gathering HIS data like he is on trial?

The Shield Law everyone is touting is another backhanded way of controlling the press as well. Reading the language, it basically says that all bets are off if the Govt thinks you have had anything to do with someone 'perceived' to be a terrorist, combatant, etc....well that could be anyone who speaks against this surveillance state.

It's an interesting time to be a journalist...we need the people to understand that we are on their side and need to have these rights to do the job of the Fourth Estate. Our Government is not supposed to mess with that right, you are so spot on.

(just a side note: I find it interesting that everyone is upset and glad at the same time that we are finding out more about the NSA and the perpetual spying on citizens...so why is everyone here so angry at Snowden? I for one think he did us all a great service in outing these programs..it is the narrative the govt wants us to buy into that he is a defector and selling info to the chinese or the russians. I truly think it is part of the govt's plan to make him seem like a 'conspirator' so that they can control the story...)

[msongs]

6. it only applies to "the press", and TV/film/electronics do not come off a press lol nt

[KY5]

8. But we must be careful not to allow things to happen under the guise of press freedom.

Just as people abuse the 2nd amendment to own any weapon they wish with no restrictions.

I also don't think any Joe Schmoe with a Godaddy domain and Wordpress blog should be considered a member of the press, but it can be argued that alternative media plays an important role in SOME regards.

Freedom can be a complex issue.

[zeemike]

11. But then you get into who defines what is and what is not.

And like congress wants to do, define it as only those on the payroll of the MSM...a very dangerous propisistion...especialy sense the MSM is controlled by major corporations.

They are re writing the constitution by definitions...and they provide the definition.

[FirstLight]

17. exactly!

the words in the Constitution are "shall make no law" that means NO laws. And by defining under the guise of 'enabling' or 'helping to protect' it's just that, a farce.

[el_bryanto]

12. What freedoms should individual bloggers not enjoy?

I can see practical limitations in allowing them access to press events, but beyond that?

Bryant

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. The real limitation is crossing police lines

During disasters.

[el_bryanto]

18. well that kind of makes sense - doesn't it?

Or am I missing something.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. You said press events.

Bloggers should be able to attend those.

Crossing lines is risky.

Some Counties in California are actually considering a great scale down, or elimination of press credentials. Those thinking keeping them, it will be demonstrable need to cover fires, for example.

And no, according to some of the local bullies I am talking out of my ass and have no reason to personally know that.

[el_bryanto]

21. i guess i was thinking more about joining say the white house press corps -

Bloggers might or might not be invited. If something is open to the general public that's one thing; but if its limited to credentialed and background checked press, than you get into economies of scale.

And this is just a discussion - no reason you should put out your two cents.

Bryant

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. There are many reasons why I don't care to discuss any more

As to the WH, they will not let Joe Shmoe, it's a balance with security

An Alldred presser involving a non important event in my town, with only credentialed press fire codes were violated. Technology allows bloggers to do this remotely. Sure, you can't ask questions, but not every body gets to ask them anyway.

Once I had a nasty cold, did not want to share with the imaginary city council I cover. So did it remotely using the in my imagination city tv.

[SomethingFishy]

22. So who do you think should decide what constitutes a journalist?

Because Joe Schmoe on Godaddy probably has a much better accuracy record than Fox News.

By your standards Fox News is just chock full of journalists. Except these "journalists" make "mistakes", they re-report satire as real stories, they openly admit they shill for a specific party, and they out and out lie.

[rock]

25. The fact that Fox News calls themselves "News"

makes those people that render Fox's screed journalists. If Fox wants to claim that they really Fox Shit-spewers, I'll let them off the hook.

[Maedhros]

13. When the First Amendment was written, "the press" consisted of private citizens

with printing presses publishing their views. "Journalism" as a profession was in its infancy.

Anyone, regardless of credentials, should be able to communicate their ideas without governmental control (with the standard exception for incitement to violence, etc.). In fact, it's probably more important that ordinary citizens be granted this right than to have free speech constrained as a privilege for the "journalist class."

[FirstLight]

19. I was going to bring up the same point

...the internet takes us back to the time of pamphlets and leaflets, penny papers, etc... with the added twist that now it only takes a keyboard and a connection, not a whole printing press and a shitload of paper!

bloggers in general don't define themselves as journalists, and those that do, usually mean it and follow a code of ethics of some sort. While Journalists don't get licensed, or have to take a Hippocratic Oath...there is still a sense of sacred duty to what we do that most in the field (even amateurs) adhere to.

[rhett o rick]

14. Great post Manny. nm

[louslobbs]

26. K&R n/t

Lou

[Laelth]

27. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[indepat]

28. The right-wing bastardization of the press (MSM) is antithetical to the Constitution imo,

but the government's interference with the press, ostensibly to hide its own malfeasance/unconstitutionality, is abhorrent.

[Enthusiast]

29. K&R! What in the fuck has happened to this country?