Mike Murray essay -- Critically Speaking, Freely

25 September 2009

Critically Speaking, Freely

-- by Mike Murray

The assistance to America's newspapers that Congressional Democrats are currently considering – with President Obama’s enthusiastic encouragement – is an affront to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. That is because clear separation between the media and the state (on which it reports) is even more critical to the proper functioning of a free society than is the one presumed between church and state.

Members of today's so-called "mainstream" media routinely misrepresent the Constitution’s free-speech provision. Here is the truth: The explicit purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage criticism of the government – and to insulate criticizers from retribution. It protects criticism that is accurate. It even protects criticism that is inaccurate ("regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein's chagrin notwithstanding).

Members of the mainstream media often assert that the inclusion of the phrase "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment gives them special privilege. It does not. Newspapers (produced on printing presses) represented the only form of mass communication when the amendment was adopted. Hence, there were no other forms back then to consider or specifically mention.

But it is clear that it was the intention of the amendment’s authors to protect ALL forms of speech and its dissemination – irrespective of any particular industry or mode of transmission. Had the amendment been drafted in modern times, it would have included direct and / or indirect references to radio broadcasts, television and cable transmissions, text messaging, and the Internet.

Moreover, since the primary intent of the First Amendment is to encourage and protect speech that is critical of government, bloggers and members of what is commonly referred to as New Media (Internet journalists prime among them), more closely reflect the First Amendment's purpose than do denizens of today's print, network, and “public” television and radio mediums.

The reason is obvious. A great many members of today's "mainstream" media have become shills for the Democrat party. Overwhelmingly in surveys, respondents confirm that the MSM helped to get Obama and other Democrats elected – and that it continues to promote their policy positions. This is hardly the critical speech that the First Amendment exists to protect.

Which is what makes it especially outrageous that Obama and Congressional Democrats now want to employ tax dollars to subsidize one of the MSM's core industries. Newspapers already serve as political lap dogs; how much more servile will they become when their very existence depends on governmental largesse?

Proponents of this boondoggle will attempt to fly the banner of the First Amendment. But they are not honoring that sacred Constitutional provision with their support of this odious proposal. They are, instead, spitting on it.

Don't let them. Stand up. Speak up. Vigorously express your opposition. It is your First Amendment right.

< Back to Berea Bits