Freedom of the Press
From InstapunditPress freedom as we know it today is a rather recent innovation. The First Amendment didn't really do much work until just before World War Two. In World War One, people were convicted of sedition for publishing things that wouldn't raise an eyebrow today. Libel suits were easier, and in general the press enjoyed much less of a special status. (For a good history, especially of the World War One and Civil War eras, read this article by Geoffrey Stone).
And it wasn't really until the 1960s and 1970s, after cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio, and the Pentagon Papers case, that what we think of as press freedom today came into existence.
So the question is, is that a coincidence -- did the United States just happen to make progress in free expression over that period -- or is that expansion of press freedom tied to the fact that regard for the press, and in particular its fairness and objectivity, was (rightly or wrongly) at unusually high levels by historical standards during those decades?
Matt's Chat
Oddly enough, I think the emergence of the press has to do with Vietnam and Watergate. Prior to that tumultuous period, Americans had faith in the government and their leaders. Americans believed in the American Dream and were optomistic about the future and our place in it.And then John Kerry and his generation came. Suddenly, America wasn't good anymore. Our military were brutal child killers. Our leaders were crooked liars. And the American Dream became something of a nightmare. Free love, tune in, and peace out. Or whatever.
The media seemed more honest and trustworthy. Why? They hid their agenda better than the politicans.
Mark's Remarks
Freedom of the Press has run amok. It used to be there was some respect between reporters and those they covered. Salacious issues were left out, and we did not constantly hear: the public has a right to know. Granted, while I love the information age and the alternative media, the mainstream press has grown salacious in its coverage to try to keep people around who are turning away from their biased accounts. It used to be you just reported the events and the people decided. Now, the mainstream press puts blatant spin in their articles to further agendize the covering of the news. It is a shame, but sadly, people like Edward Murrow today would never make it because they were too objective, their objectivity would be called softness, even though I myself find refreshing the lack of an agenda in the reporting. Today, we have a bunch of mini WH Hearsts who are using pictures to produce tragedy, and it is sad and pathetic.
