What am I missing here? What part of the relationship between a free press

[WCGreen]

and the elected government and I not getting in focus?

The Constitutions very first Amendment established a free press, free speech ...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...

That Amendment gives the right for anyone with the ability and the wherewithal to get a message out the freedom to do so. There is nothing in that Amendment saying the stuff collected and released into the public domain has to be responsible, truthful or even coherent (fox news). It also does not say that the government is prohibited from question the validity or the motive behind information released by a "Free Press".

So anyone from the Obama administration is free to criticize the content of the information used to attack or undermine the policies of the Administrations. The only caveat would be that say the Secretary of the Treasury directing the IRS to examine the books of say Murdoch and thus tie up his asserts in directions other than those that are news gathering.

The argument that is developing among the media elite is that the professions is capable of self regulating and that the market place will determine what is true and what is not simply through the magic of supply and demand.

Of course that is laughably false on so many levels. The free market does not allow free access of ideas it allows for those with money and power to determine what is set out as news. It is only on the fringes that the truth has a chance and so that is not a free and open and equal battle of ideas.

But the point of the matter is the president, the Congress and the judiciary, as far as their ethical cannons allow, are free to put their idea of what is put out into the market place of free ideas. They can challenge any opinion or "truth" they wish. They are not required, as far as I know, to set aside their rights as citizens once they take the oath of office.

What seems to be developing from those on the right and the half hearted support coming from the weak left is that there is no place for any governmental agency to ask a simple question; prove your argument. What grounds do you have other than ideological fluttery to challenge the validity of anything any administrations puts out as it's policy.

But more important, if the president and the congress or anyone else is bullied into not answering a challenge, who will?

Is that really the reality of a free press that Joe Klein Charles Krautham et al would really except as a free press?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. It's a complex topic.

I think what you're saying is that anyone in the government still has the right of free speech. Anyone may ask that you prove your argument.

And no-one has the right to bully the President or the Congress into being silent. They have the right to answer a challenge...

In fact, I believe they have to answer any challenge.

I believe that answering challenges from the press is something our government should do.

[annabanana]

2. "Self Regulation" is an oxymoron. It always has been...

It never works, and it's never good for the community at large.

k&r