I AM A JOURNALIST. SO ARE YOU.

[JDPriestly]

79. That used to be the case.

But today, news and opinion are mixed in articles.

And the problem is that the paid press does not report the news fully. Very few corporate "news" sources reported on the fact that the Bush administration was lying us into war in Iraq. Very few corporate "news" sources are willing to report on they immense poverty in the face of extreme wealth in our country. Very few corporate "news" sources report on the corruption on Wall Street today. Very few corporate "news" sources have reported fully and truthfully about the important contribution that the ACA will make to our country in terms of economic and social justice. Very few corporate "news" sources reported honestly and truthfully and fully about the Occupy movement. Very few corporate "news" sources report accurately about Republican attempts to close down the country. Very few corporate "news" sources reported what was really going on in Florida when Bush was appointed in 2000.

For the truth on these stories, Americans had to turn to news sources that are not corporate, many of them unpaid individuals who publish on the internet.

I remember in 2008 when John McCain spread lies about what was happening between Georgia and the USSR. It was one of his regular attempts to start another unnecessary war. I personally went to the Austrian newspapers, read their unbiased reports and comments on that story and published the translation and my comments on DU. In that case, I was a source, perhaps not the only one, but a source of truth about a situation that the McCain campaign was misrepresenting.

And I am just one person who is not paid but who can read foreign languages, can obtain information that ordinary Americans cannot get from the so-called "news" meaning the corporate news in America.

If I walk into the courthouse in my hometown next week and find in a trash bin government documents that are marked confidential or secret and that reveal some wrongdoing, some scandalous behavior by a judge or a jury or the President of the US or any senator or the NSA (just an example, not going to happen) and I publish that information on the internet, I deserve the protection of the First Amendment.

As one reporter pointed out, many newspapers rely in part or in whole on freelance reporters. This is especially true of magazines. In addition, the corporations themselves issue press releases and other kinds of information to the press which the press simply edits for style and reprints.

The Congress should not define the press. It is a shortsighted, stupid idea. It's just ridiculous. Anyone who reports a story on the internet or in a local or national news media or just in their own printed newsletter is a member of the press and should be protected by the First Amendment. The White House does not have to issue every one of us a press pass. That is a different matter. But once they start defining "the press," they aren't simply deciding who gets a press pass, they are deciding who is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. We all are entitled to that protection when we publish something. Speech is the spoken word and some written word. The press is publishing news that is not necessarily our opinions. The press today includes both opinion and fact.

Congress is trying to cheat the First Amendment. It isn't a cat and mouse game that Congress should be worrying about winning. It is our freedom. It is our Bill of Rights that is at stake.