JVoV
Posts: 3651
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online
|
Oh. I forgot to call you a dumbass. My b. You're a dumbass, Bosco. And by reading what you want into my posts you fail to actually respond to my posts themselves, and what is actually said. This is called a strawman argument, meaning you have absolutely nothing else to say in the matter but lies. Of course it shouldn't be left to politicians to decide who is a journalist or not, because the 1st Amendment is there to protect the citizens FROM the government. The entire Bill of Rights exists for this reason, and to empower the State governments. Politicians on either side are the government, not the people. So it would be up to us, the people, to define 'the press' in the internet age. If we set the definitions, then the courts are more likely to go by them, and politicians may do that too
But we all have the right to free speech. We all have the right to be a journalist, but some of us lack the compassion or just passion. Telling my friends about a movie I watched, or a recipe I tried, or even the best produce place I've found isn't journalism. It isn't the press. I'm not in the White House Press Room getting the scoop; I'm not imbedded with the Taliban to tell the world what great guys they are, I'm not even hiding in the bushes at a new trendy restaurant, waiting for a celebrity to come out so I can get a picture to sell to TMZ.
Freedom of the press. The world has changed. I would say a cameraman imbedded with with a reporter in Syria is a journalist. The guy running the camera to film Kimmy Kimmel Live! not so much. I think he knows it too.
But we as a people need to have the conversation to determine what we define as the press. Was Al Capone's vault being empty on live TV a piece of true journalism by Geraldo? I'd say so, even if it was a complete waste of time. That's the key to any investigation, there may be nothing to find, but when there is... It's a big fucking deal. Geraldo Rivera has actually done tremendous work in journalism, but that doesn't mean he should automatically be able to use 'freedom of the press' to get away with things an ordinary citizen wouldn't be able to, that aren't directly related to journalism. Being on tv doesn't make you a journalist. I'd say Billy Bush is a journalist, on the entertainment beat. But I'd just say Kelly Clarkson has a talk show.
Perhaps how people define journalism is what separates us most these days. I don't consider Twitter news, even though I know that it can be. It can also be shit-talking, movie & restaurant reviews, community message boards, etc. And yes, sometimes, social media can be where news is first reported. There are going to be citizen journalists getting the scoop with the videocamera on their phone. We couldn't do that 20 years ago. But does every "Karen" video on TikTok qualify as news? Could someone be arrested or ticketed for jaywalking while they have their camera on? No. What we have defined as 'freedome of the press' comes via the courts, and the profession of journalism itself.
I suppose it all depends on the legal strategy you use. FOX news had lawyers saying Tucker Carlson can't be taken as anything more than political commentary and exaggeration.
|
RE: RE:The Continuous Republican CUlt of Censorship - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread