Rights not Privileges

| | Comments (1)
Media freedom is protected not because of its own intrinsic value, but because it has a larger purpose. The opinions studied showed that, despite the apparently absolute language of the First Amendment, media freedom is a means, not an end.

Haiman, 71

I really liked the end of this guide. They're making some great points here. The Media has the freedom to be unfair, because it's their job to reveal the truth to the public. And it's not like they don't still have some restrictions--in terms of libel issues and the like, but the main point is that this "Right" isn't a privilege like some of our other rights are. It really surprises me that Americans think the press has too much freedom. We (yes, I still consider myself a part of the press, because I do work on the school paper) still have more restrictions than I'd like to acknowledge. Sometimes, it makes sense. Outside of school, I learned today that press aren't allowed to bring cameras into the courtroom. I can understand that--it would be REALLY distracting to see cameras constantly flashing, but they're still allowed to swarm around the lawyers and defendants once they leave the court room. The press makes compromises when they have to--it's the public who have a hard time compromising with the press. I get that we don't like having people nose around in our business, but I see things from both sides I guess, because I have experience as a journalist. It really is a touchy subject.


Katie Vann said:

I agree with you Jessie. In my blog I talked about how people want to limit the press for usually cause of bad personal experience, but if the limitation would be applied to a different situation it may not prove as satisfactory to the one who wanted it limited. Your experience working with journalism helps to point out where you have to compromise and what already is limited for you despite supposedly having freedoms with the press.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.