The only profession?
The Bangor Daily News has a fascinating tale of the Las Vegas Sun’s Pulitzer-winning research that is worth a read.
Unfortunately, the lede contains a fallacy (as pointed out aptly by Jay Rosen):
public service journalism should remind a cynical and fickle public of
the worth of this medium, which, by the way, is the only profession
enshrined in the First Amendment.
Let’s look at the First Amendment for a moment:
There are numerous parts to that amendment. It might help if we broke it down into its constituent pieces:
1. Establishment of religion
2. Free exercise of religion
3. Freedom of Speech
4. Freedom of the Press
5. Right of Assembly
6. Redress of Grievances
Now, the writer of the Bangor piece clearly confuses “press” with “newspaper,” which is a major problem as we shall see later.
But first, I’d rather point out other “professions” that are “enshrined” in the First Amendment.
Probably the first would be “preacher,” as in “religious authority.” Freedom of the Press is only the fourth right granted by the First Amendment, behind freedom from establishment, free exercise, and freedom of speech. So “preacher” or “religious authority” would be the first “profession” enshrined in the First Amendment.
What about freedom of speech? Well, clearly, “community organizers” would seem to be enshrined in the amendment as well. And lobbyists, for all anyone cares to curse them, seem to be protected by this part of the amendment as well. We could also add “comedians” to that list of people protected by the “free speech” clause of the First Amendment.
And even if we turn to the “freedom of the press” part of the amendment, we run into problems related to the current “newspaper journalism” ideal that such journalism is “enshrined” in the FA. The clause clearly points out that it is freedom “of the press” that is protected.
“Press” includes book publishers, authors, magazine publishers, printers, etc. It would actually cover anyone who could get ahold of a printing press to spread their political ideas (e.g. – the Federalist papers). Indeed, the advent of the Internet and weblogs and other publishing platforms shows decidedly that it isn’t just the platform that determines who gets to enjoy First Amendment protections for their “freedom of the press.”
In short, the editorial is hopelessly wrong in its assertion that “newspaper journalism” is the only profession “enshrined” in the First Amendment.
Indeed, one could argue that NO “profession” is enshrined in the First Amendment, per se. Rather, the First Amendment “enshrines” ideals – free speech, free thought, free practice of spiritual exercise, freedom of political thought.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I applaud the reporter whose research won the Pulitzer. I think there is a case to be made for why newspaper journalism is important. But this egotistical blathering about the special place newspaper journalism holds in the First Amendment is the wrong approach.
Simon Owens p0wns HuffPo
Simon Owens does the legwork to show that the majority of Huffington Post front page stories are not “original reporting.” Check it out here.
Very reminiscent of a paper I did with Chris Roberts at South Carolina. Here’s the PDF.
FWIW, I’m less than enthused about HuffPo. Ariana Huffington rode the wave of blogging by gathering a bunch of A- B- and C-list celebrities, paying them NOTHING for their thoughts, and now she shuffles a lot of AP content through there as well. So she’s not unlike the traditional media elites in that respect.
I hope to repeat our study in the future. Oh, to have the time.
Flickr
-
