A letter in the Jan. 17 edition called “Freedom of the Press” as something where “journalists accept to gather, confirm, reconfirm, and report on factual information that is vetted by a …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
If you made a voluntary contribution of $25 or more in Nov. 2018-2019, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access Includes access to all websites
A letter in the Jan. 17 edition called “Freedom of the Press” as something where “journalists accept to gather, confirm, reconfirm, and report on factual information that is vetted by a responsible editorial board.” I agree this was the previous American journalistic way our First Amendment created. But it no longer transpires as such to audiences. The idea that today’s press could be “held civilly liable for inaccuracies and criminally responsible for willful untruths,” and that “they do not deal in opinions,” was proven wholly erroneous during the Dr. King weekend with the Catholic schoolboy story. As most of our national media offered opinions, false reports, panels of “if this is true” journalists in representing Fake News of incidents or information, media organizations refused to publish retractions nor openly admit errors.Why is our national news media today agenda driven? They do not wait for confirmations or official statements, treating them as unnecessary for the sake of expediency. News outlets all enticed to rush to similar judgments epitomizes these heresies.
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.