Media, rights & hypocrisy
The news stories “Freedom key to watchdog role, experts say” and “Controversies over journalist phone records reignite calls for federal media shield law” (both June 2 and TribLIVE.com) highlight the hypocrisy of major liberal media, specifically The Associated Press, when government “abridges” their constitutional rights, specifically the First Amendment's freedom of the press.
Quite suddenly, the Bill of Rights offers important constitutional protections! Not so, apparently, for the Second Amendment.
Liberal media argue that the right to bear arms is obsolete in today's society, but will not see that it is the contemporaneous Second Amendment that backs up the First Amendment to prevent tyranny over the press.
Further, it is laughable that journalism professor Richard Benedetto would characterize the media as a “watchdog” or that Maureen Ciarolla, daughter of a victim of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System's Legionella outbreak, would think that without a free press, the government could hide embarrassing failures from the public. Indeed, the current statist administration, for which liberal media act as the propaganda arm, sees the entire Bill of Rights as an obstacle to a more “efficient” regulatory state.
Interestingly, the operative words in these amendments, “abridge” and “infringe,” described as archaic or obsolete, have similar meanings, both protecting a constitutional right!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Good riddance
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Idea for casino
- Punishment pushback I
- Framers’ understanding
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Punishment pushback II
- Don’t blame bus drivers I
- Don’t blame bus drivers II