"Yet that faith in a free press was tempered over the decades by what he regarded as grossly unfair reporting" (Haiman 72).
As we have discussed before, news can do unrepairable damage. Some people may feel "attack" by news reporters while many feel that the right to privacy has been disregarded in trying to get good journalism.
However, if the freedom of the press was to become more restrained and forced to become more conservative, where would the line be drawn? In order to slow down and pull back on a press that is claimed to have taken advantage of their freedoms, limits would have to be set. But where would the limits end?
Public figures sometimes feel they are attacked by newsreporters, even when there isn't a story to be found. Even though they may complain, wouldn't they want the same reporters to questions other public figures who affect society if something could possibly be going on, even if the outcome was there was nothing to report? The same would apply to non-public figures as well. I think with this people too often only look at their own personal sitatuon, rather than looking how what they are proposing about what should be done with the freedom of the press would affect our nation in general. Yes, you may want limits to freedom of reporting when a reporter is trying to interrogate you, but I'm sure no one was complaining that the press had too much freedom when the Madoff situation first appeared. It would be a win-lose situation if limits were put on the press: it may prevent harm from happening in one story, but it may cause something important for the public to know to be lost in another.