The first amendment of the U. S. Constitution is very clear when it comes to the press. Perhaps the founding fathers could have been a bit more direct: "the press must 'report' the truth and only the truth, do not take sides (except in a general editorial where a reader may have the opportunity to answer back in kind, which must be printed as a form of rebuttal) and when reporting errors the retraction must be printed in the same manner that the original story was delivered".
What was meant by "abridging” in the wording of the first amendment? With absolute certainty no reasonable person can possibly believe the founding fathers gave carte blanch to the press to report any story with complete disregard to fact checking for the truth. The Constitution was very carefully crafted by some of the best educated men, and their staffs, of their time. All of the deputies from each of the colonies were equally as well educated also. Therefore it makes no sense that they would put limits on all levels of government with regards to interfering with any citizen’s life but turn over to as well as protect the right of a group of individuals (press, media of any type, etc.) to write or say anything they wish with complete disregard for the truth. That leaves only one conclusion they did not give the press any such power.
The "power of the press” is self ordained by none other than the members of the media itself. There is no such freedom or protection under our Constitution either written or implied. The word "abridging" was carefully selected (present tense) to forbid government control and to remind the press of their obligation to report the complete story which includes all of the facts, good or bad, as well as to fact check all of the information so as not to bring harm to others. Simply said the government shall not impair the press (all media) and the press should not bring injury to the citizenry.
Another thing that is most confounding may be how no one is allowed to tell a journalist (except in cases of national security) they can not report a particular story or item of information. (If this were to happen we all know how loud the screaming would get about the first amendment's "rights" and "protection".) Than why do these same journalists have the right to withhold an important story through the practice of censorship? Withholding information about our political leaders both before they get elected and after they are sworn into office, which might be damaging, is not an option under the first amendment.
Today’s "press” now includes all media types (print, broadcast, etc.) but instead of just the media we all must guard ourselves from both "left” or "right” political or hardcore marketing (spinning) influences. The founding fathers would be appalled at a number of events that have taken place over these near two and a half centuries. The one thing that would astound them the most would be how some portions of the "press” (newspapers) have evolved and are on the fast track to self destruction. (Following in the footsteps of these print media groups are some far left leaning 24/7 news broadcast entities as well as a like amount of major blog players on the world wide web of the internet.) The visual portion of the broadcast media is truly a beast of its own. The viewership of these shows is mostly very low, (with rare exception) one wonders how they stay in business.
The good thing is there are shining lights amongst the new "press”, both print and broadcast media. In the various radio discussion show, on both sides of the issues, productions, unlike the print media, offer a two way avenue of feedback for the host, the callers and the listeners, whether they agree with each other or have a profound difference of opinion. It is very rewarding to hear a coming together after a clear discussion has ironed out the differences. Unfortunately there are those who are only interested in their own opinion whether based on facts or just a thought in their mind.
Thank God for the free society that was given to us by those same "learned gentlemen” who fathered this great country. For now we all have the ability to access world wide information and no longer are as easily duped by smooth talking leaders who do not have our country’s interest at the forefront.
Perhaps we can all draw from one of our most beloved statesmen: "You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
Click for: Comments/Feedback orBack to Categories
