6 of 104

Write now Article Tools

This concept in todays world is very much a question that needs to be addressed because of how the media has changed over 2.5 centuries. Originally, the press was a single person, or small group of publishers such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine who had a message to get out to the people in regards to freedom, tyrrany, rebellion, and revolution. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson... both who would later become US Presidents, led the charge to promote the Federalist Papers that would create the National government of a union of states.

Do you see a comparison here between the two different media sources of the time? There WAS NO desire to be fair and balanced... each sought to change the minds of people towards the goals and agendas they desired.

Free speech and freedom of the press are as equal in the sense that they are NOT required to be fair and balanced, or provide both sides of a story for their readers and viewers. All they are by law is to ensure that they do not incite slander, libel, and report information that could hurt our national security.

The media has changed so much since the second world war. Once where there were onsite correspondants giving us daily glimpses into the truth while acknowledging that reporting sensationalism would be bad for their own nation... such as NEVER showing President Roosevelt in a position where you saw his braces or that he had to be helped from a wheelchair to a podium, or reporting on John F. Kennedys assortment of affairs and back problems.

But once the 1960's came into being, EVERYTHING changed. There was no love of country, and the press once again became a format to play out the agendas of editors and writers. Not only did we get the start of 'body count' reporting during Vietnam, but we also saw a very biased and one sided view in regards to Civil Rights stories and the anti-establishment movement.

All of this culminated in the Watergate scandal and the bringing down of a President. Everyone KNOWS the names of Woodward and Bernstein, and the shift started from nameless reporters to celebrity reporters. Each new journalist came in with the dream not of making a difference in their careers, but instead, of finding or CREATING that one story that would set them up for life as a celebrity.

But agenda reporting has occurred every since the beginning... so that is NOT the smoking gun to re-look at Freedom of the Press rights. No, it is the final act of media that has changed the scope of what is reported and who is responsible... and that is the corporation.

Corporations that at their core business model have absolutely nothing to do with reporting and media, but instead treat this part of their conglomeration as a bottom line venture. It isnt a matter of reporting the truth, or reporting what occurs, it is a matter of reporting what will attract the most viewers for advertsing revenues. In this, EVERYTHING is fair game, and nothing could be so blatant as the disrespect the press has for the office of the President. Whether you like the man in the office or not is not the important issue, but the respecting of the Office that represents America to the world is the equivalent of how you respect yourself.

When Brian Williams in an interview with President Bush on live tape-delayed television called him 'Bush' and not Mr President, then the actions of the media have reached their culmination of being ABOVE the government and people that allow them their authority and power, and it is indeed time to re-evaluate NOT Free Speech...

But Freedom of the Press and distinguish levels that separate corporate press, from individual press... such as websites and blogs of individual people.

Learn more about this author, Kenneth Schortgen Jr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should the media have freedom of speech??
We want to hear your view. Write now!