Media Rights

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“In practical reality when a greater set of carte blanch rights is acknowledged and/or bestowed upon any segment of society the trust and consequent of such an act is to diminish faith in our rational and legal processes.”

Appealing to the precise US Constitution language frequently assists us in clarifying the misunderstanding which decades of non-appeal have created.  Thus it is with “freedom of the press.”  The mask of popularity of various forms of media (it matters not which) has grown to engender a major fallacy.

Freedom does not and cannot effectively mean that one segment of society has greater “carte blanch” than any other segment of society.  For extreme example a wealthy assassin has no additional “right” to a greater presumption of innocence than those with lesser wealth.  The simple ability to purchase stronger legal representation does not provide greater right, but simply stronger external advocacy.

In practical reality when a greater set of carte blanch rights is acknowledged and/or bestowed upon any segment of society the trust and consequent of such an act is to diminish faith in our rational and legal processes.

In the case of the media it (they) ought not to have any greater extended rightful access to information than any other member of society.  The benefit to the media rest in their indistinguishable protected right to opine on a matter.  (I shall not address the obvious caution involved in fallacious reporting).

Recently, the latest media hue and cry has been that the president has in rare instances, and purports to be considering even more extensive instances, may not make access of the media to his conducting of presidential business. Just yesterday Secretary of State Tillerson held a news conference in a foreign country.  The US media was not invited to participate.

The bellowing of bellicose brats express the claim that the media has a “right” to access.  That is their failing of constitutional understanding.  They have presumed a right which extends above and beyond random citizens.  Once again, their rights do not!  Not under the US Constitution.

The media generally presumes, due to decades of misunderstanding and mis-intents, that they hold a greater right of character assassination than their less equipped equal citizens.  If they did not have this presumption they would be demanding the president open all access to all citizens.  But they isolate themselves to privileging themselves with the right to assassinate with impunity.

…nothing within the scope of the Bill of Rights suggests they have a right to act as though every action of the president is a press briefing.”

It is rightfully time that the media be brought to understand that their only constitutional privilege over other citizens is the right to freely publish.  Prudence would suggest that they be balanced in publishing the views of those that peacefully assemble to express their grievances.

Aside from that last nuance nothing within the scope of the Bill of Rights articulates, presumes, implies or even suggests they have a right to act as though every action of the president is a press briefing.

That Is The Way I See It.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s