Should the Press Be Protected Under the Constitution Any Longer???

[ItsMyParty]

Maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment - and not regarding gay marriage - but to redefine, clarify and basically put the boots to the press. The Founding Daddies protected the press because they felt a free press was the backbone of democracy; that people had a right to know what their governent was doing; and that people had a right to express their thoughts on the actions of their government. But take a look a today's press.

Example: Novak's outing of Plame had nothing to do with either reporting a news item nor making a commentary about something on our national scene. It was simply a goon of the right using his "protected" status to commit a crime and spread more seeds of propaganda.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned the magnitude, impact and brainwashing capabilities inherent in such a mass media with such constant 24/7 power directly inserted into the lives of the public. Thus, 'the press' is no longer the bedrock of a democracy; it's becoming (as a right wing corporate entity)the very destruction of democracy. The media has turned "Lady Liberty" into a whore. If we don't redefine, regulate and force outlets for opposing views, that Constitution isn't going to be worth the decaying paper it's written on.

[pmbryant]

1. Yes

Rather, the fix for the current broadcast media problem is to properly enforce public service obligations upon those private entities that are awarded use of the public airwaves.

Peter

[yellowjacket]

13. Your very premise is wrong.

Only the airwaves are public. Coaxial cables are not. That covers ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox (not Fox News). The rest of the channels, and generally the worst offenders, are those that you willingly pay for and therefore cannot regulate. Anything goes on cable.

[lastliberalintexas]

2. Certainly

You shouldn't argue for a law or amendment you wouldn't also want applied to you, and I doubt you'd want your right to free speech suppressed (any more than it has been by this admin anyway).

[rman]

3. "press becoming a right wing corporate entity"

That is what the problem is, so that is what shold be addressed:
reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and reverse the monopolization of the media.
That is an entirely different matter then any special protection the press might have. Not that protection but the concentration of media power into the hands of a few is the problem.

[ItsMyParty]

4. rman--exactly. What needs to be redefined and enforced is

the government protecting and regulating the concentration of the press into the hands of a few. With competition, corporate whores like we see with CNN, etc. are kept a bit more honest. Obviously, without much competition their slanted news has no checks and balances. We need to allow for freedom of the press but we need to start making sure that one ideology cannot own and operate most of the mass media. It doesn't take much to make the concept of "press" turn into 'propaganda' and that's what has to be guarded against.

[yellowjacket]

14. The Fairness Doctrine is in all ways unamerican.

As I said above, only the public part of the airwaves are public. Cable is not. And here's the REAL problem I have with it. The Fairness Doctrine can easily be stretched to apply to the internet as easily as it could be applied to radio or TV. Why, you say? Because a significant portion of internet traffic travels on public, that is, government purchased/funded internet routers and fiber. Being that's the case and users cannot route traffic around such public lines, should the government also apply the Fairness Doctrine to the internet? I would rather they didn't, since we have a huge stronghold here. I say we just wait it out and the media will flip back our way. What goes around comes around.

[Jacobin]

5. If we ever get a press back, I'd say we should protect it

:-)

[DeepModem Mom]

6. I agree with you that our democracy is in crisis because of this issue --

I don't know what can be done, but I know the truth of a quote (source I sadly didn't note) that I keep posted by my desk: "The Founding Fathers gave the press Constitutional protection because DEMOCRACY REQUIRES AN INDEPENDENT PRESS to keep citizens aware of their government." This democracy lacks that requirement. Our press is not independent, and only those news seekers who go to great lengths to find alternative news sources are aware of their government. And that is why a man like George W. Bush, whose credibility is a creation of the press, sits in our White House, having not only been placed their illegitimately, with impunity, but having garnered nearly fifty percent of the votes cast in 2000.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Bzzt wrong answer. For right answer see Justice Brandeis

As Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1927 in Whitney vs. California, "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

[ItsMyParty]

8. How do you "enforce" more speech if you do not regulate

a corporate monopoly on pushing nothing but a right wing agenda. If people don't have the money to go against these entities in this modern multi-billion dollar media business, then, perhaps there needs to be government subsidised competition or require that corporate media provide an alternate site or balanced coverage. Point blank: this media we hold so sacred is torching democracy.

[Baltimoreboy]

16. And Hollywood does just the opposite

That's what happens in a free society.

[thinkingwoman]

9. um, a bit of history here...

the press was anything but objective during founding father time...look up yellow journalism and multiply by factor of 10.

The founding fathers protected obviously biased press...they'd roll over in their graves to hear suggestion that press should be limited now.

Want to jerk a knot in press/media's tale? Start suing for slander and libel. Just because somebody is in the public eye doesn't mean there is no recourse for outright lies.

I should know. I'm a print journalist. We can't print just anything, and if we do, we should be sued.

I think politicians let press get by with shit because they want to do the same against their opponents.

[kodi]

10. your post is one of the most historically ignorant ones i have seen on DU

i question whether or not you understand america or the US constitution at all.

seriously, you must have no knowledge of the alien & sedition acts of 1798 and the consequences of such things to the republic.

you would destroy freedom of speech and a free, unencumbered press in effort to save the republic?

where have i heard this before?

"we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

itsmyparty, its my country too, so don't go around trying to fuck it up just because you don't like what you hear on tv or radio.

[NEDem]

11. Even though

we may not agree with the press at all times, and many (rightly so) think the press is manipulating the public; a free press is without a doubt the most important asset of our democracy.

I know it can be infuriating to see the Fox's of the world lie and misrepresent the news day in day out, but in the 'marketplace of ideas' the best way to counter unpopular speech is with MORE speech.

I believe the problem does not lie with the reporters and talking heads rather it lies in media ownership, giant multi-nationals now control what we see and hear. I talked with my former journalism professor a month or 2 ago about this very issue and he put it like this: "corporations are in the business of making money, and journalists like working".

The reality is that we must find a way to roll the currently ridiculous media ownership rules back to what they were under the Communications Act of 1934. The airwaves belong to us, its our duty to take them back. It won't be easy, after the election I'd recommend harnessing the energy and momentum we have gained in the last couple years to demand changes to media ownership rules.

The airwaves belong to all of us, lets go get them back!

[NEDem]

12. one more important thing

every broadcast entity (not cable) has to go through a relicensing every few years. The broadcaster MUST inform the public that they are going through this. When you see a local radio or TV station is doing this, organize your friends neighbors and other like minded people to mount a letter writing campaign to the station AND FCC. These letters must be by the broadcast outlet to the FCC when they ask for their renewal. If enough people make enough noise you never know what might be accomplished.

[Baltimoreboy]

17. What is a broadcaster?

The new poster above has a point. Cable companies, cable radio, direct TV, Internet all change the traditional view that the FCC has any power over the media.

Can the FCC regulate CNN? If so, why not CNN.com? If them, then why not DU?

[mmonk]

15. Yes

as long as it remains a free press. Sometimes, I wonder if that's still the case since it suppresses or ignores vital information.

[grasswire]

18. it's time....

...for a people's bill of rights for media-white house transparency.

Here's the prototype for such a document:

The Peoples' Bill of Rights for Media - White House Transparency

1. The White House Correspondents Association shall be the sole credentialing authority for entry to press events and briefings.

2. The president shall appear before the White House press corps for a regularly scheduled monthly conference of no less than two hours.

3. Questions will be asked of the president in an order to be determined by the White House Correspondents Association.

4. No questions will be submitted in advance to White House employees. No suggestions for questions will be communicated from the White House to reporters.

5. No credentialed members of the press will be denied access to any press event except by the decision of the White House Correspondents Association.

6. Members of the White House press shall not accept faxes, phone calls, e-mails or other communications from the political office of the WH, from political campaigns, from the RNC, the DNC, or lobbyists or other politics-based agents, unless the reporter has initiated the contact. Such entities may provide copy of any background material to a WHCA library where it will be available for reporters.

7. There shall be no contact between political advisors to the White House and reporters for the purpose of punishing members of the press for their coverage. If the White House has a complaint, it shall be made in writing by the press secretary and submitted to the White House Correspondents Association, with any remedy or admonishment to be made by the Association to the correspondent in question.

http://webdems.blogspot.com