Brain Fertilizer

I'm beginning to think that one of the failings of the US Constitution* is that news/press was not treated in the same manner as religion.

The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press along with Freedom of Religious Expression. Which one has actually been curtailed over the last 50 years? Which one is actually under assault? We don't allow unfettered Freedom of Religious Expression anymore, alas. An atheist minority has succeeded in enshring its belief system as the default. Shame and scorn are heaped upon anyone who professes a religious belief.

It's gotten so bad that some more extreme critics of religion are saying that it is wrong for a President or other higher official to cite or turn to his religious beliefs to affect public policy.**

I can understand and even agree with the thought behind the separation between Church and State, although the concept was to keep the government from restricting religious freedom by endorsing, supporting, or establishing one specific religion, rather than preventing religion from influencing government. One could argue that by adopting "atheism" as a default viewpoint, that separation has already been fully violated, but that's a different issue. The point is that the separation of church and state is not because religion is wrong, or superstitious, or inherently troublesome, it is merely that the goals and objectives of government and religion are different, and making decisions for one according to the priorities for the other are not good for the nation.

But isn't that true of the Press/news, as well?

It has often been said that a Free Press is vital for the well-being of the nation; I've often said that our Press is anything but free, it's already been bought and paid for. But the original statement is essentially true. Since we cannot be omnipresent to see all things for ourselves, we need a Press that is free enough to tell us what actually is happening in locations and at levels of power that the average individual cannot observe. Freedom of Speech and Press being equally important as Freedom of Religion, shouldn't there also be steps taken to ensure its Freedom? Isn't that vital for the well-being of the nation itself?

For instance, why, exactly should the anonymity of sources be inviolate? I know it isn't in the Constitution... How much harm has been done to the nation when ethically-impaired writers for the Boston Globe, Washington Post, and New York Times make up sources and invent statements for the purpose of advancing a specific ideological view? It wouldn't be an issue if sources were not automatically confidential. And how much harm has been done to the nation through leaks from Unnamed Sources High Within the Administration/Party/Department? If the news these sources are leaking is truly so important, they should be willing to stake their name and/or reputation to the leak, with two layers of anonymity at the most (source on file but only available with a SCOTUS order, or some similar protection). Sources might be less forthcoming, but wouldn't that be better? ...since it would force "reporters" to do actual investigation instead of merely parroting what someone else says and passing it off as "fact".

But that's not the most important aspect that should be considered. The most important is that I am beginning to think we need to establish a wall of separation between Press and State. How many of the Sunday morning pundits are former government bureaucrats? Should President Clinton and the Democrat Party really be able to place George Stephanopolis in a prime slot giving his version of the "news" to a national audience? What "undue influence" comes from having news and commentary from NPR, which gets its funding from the government...but most specifically defended and pushed by the more liberal part of the government? What would the Democrat reaction be if we took an equal amount of money to fund a public radio with hosts like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin?

The role of government is to protect the people. The role of the Press is to expose greed and corruption and falsehood, so that the common person can make his own decisions as to what is really going on. Or maybe a better way to describe it is that the government is supposed to ensure the well-being of the nation directly, and the press was supposed to ensure the well-being of our nation indirectly, mainly by acting as an independent investigative body focused on ferreting out cases when our government was not ensuring the well-being of the nation.

Well, they punted on that obligation. Our Press developed an agenda during the Viet Nam war and found its calling in the Nixon administration by way of the Watergate issue. Howard Raines is no longer the editor of the New York Times because he subordinated news reporting to his political views.

And from an entirely different perspective, how can the news be an effective watchdog if they exist mainly on advertising dollars?

As it stands now, our "Free" Press is all but worthless. I admit I'm somewhat at a loss as to what steps to take to liberate the Press. I have a few suggestions, but I'm not committed to any and am willing to discuss any other ideas.

1) Government policymakers*** may not work in news media after they retire.
2) Is there a term for breaking up all the news conglomerates and forcing them to function only as non-profit organizations? That's kind of what I'd like to do to help break them from their dependence on advertising
3) No anonymous sources. Would "Stephanie Plame" even have been an issue without this anonymity tradition?
4) The New York Times Ombusdman isn't doing much to correct the mistakes/distortions of Raines...can we set up an independent News Ombudsman designed to discover factual distortions and report on biases in the news media? Probably not.

To reiterate: I think the nation would be in far better shape if we were as cautious about intermingling Press and Government as we are about Church and State.

*yes, nothing is perfect. Amendments help, but I think we could use another Constitution Convention at some point...but not while things are so polarized and evenly divided.

**funny, but no one seemed to have a problem with the Reverands Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton running for President...

***a general term, I know. I want to prevent Congresscritters, Cabinet Members, Department Heads and Deputies, Party Chairmen, and high-level staff members, as well as Presidents, from taking their views and agendas into jobs in the news media.