The impulse to limit press freedoms grows either when the press is doing a good job (and offending somebody) or when it is doing a bad job, as it mostly is now.

But beating the press is always popular, except when we need it.

The press has always been at least somewhat corrupt, controlled by despotic owners who wielded power by manufacturing news and slanting coverage, and corporations owning local newspapers. It's period of being governed by ethics is relatively recent, and clearly it's slipping back to darker days.

As for limiting press protection for sources, there is only limited protection in the law now.  Not many people outside the NY Times, and apparently inside it as well, defend Judith Miller in this case, which may violate the Times own guidelines--that sources seeking to commit crimes or abet them can't expect protection (something like that---don't hold me to the wording.)

We needed the big newspapers to expose the Pentagon Papers and to expose Watergate.  When Paul Krugman or Frank Rich express some of the same opinions you might find on the big blogs, their opinion carries more weight in the realms of power because of who they write for.  We read them because of that, and because they express themselves so well.  The big papers and networks get amazing access denied to others.  They have a role.  We rightly criticize them when they're wrong, but when they're right we are strengthened.

So it's the same as a lot of things.  It needs serious change, but we work with what we have until we can get that change.  

   

by Captain Future on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 10:42:50 PM EST