Never pick a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
What should a reporter do when threatened with retaliation for writing something the subject of a story feels is "inappropriate"?
The answer, as Davy Crockett might have put it is this: Be sure you're right, then go ahead. In journalism, that means the reporter writes the story anyway, especially after a threat. And the more specific the threat, the more emphasis the disputed item should get.
These thoughts come to mind after reading an expose on TV commentator Bill O'Reilly and allegations that he embellished his role as a young reporter for CBS News covering the Falkland Islands dispute in 1982.
It seems O'Reilly has claimed he was in the war zone amid the violence when he was really in Buenos Aires covering a protest demonstration that did not even rise to the level of a riot, according to other reporters who were there. The story first appeared in Mother Jones magazine, and was then picked up by the New York Times.
In an interview with a Times reporter, O'Reilly reportedly said there would be repercussions if the reporter wrote something that O'Reilly deemed "inappropriate." Consequently, the New York Times duly reported what O'Reilly said: "I am coming after you with everything I have. You can take it as a threat." (New York Times, 24 February 2015, Page 1)
O'Reilly is a very potent force in conservative media through his daily commentary show on the Fox News Network. Whether he still considers himself a reporter is another issue, because he certainly is not neutral in his coverage and comments on daily events. But as a former reporter, he should know better than to threaten reporters.
O'Reilly has gone full tilt in defending his claims, and has invited other CBS News crew members who were at the scene to join him on his TV show and "hash it out," according to the Times report.
They have declined the invitation. Or, as one put it, he was familiar with the way O'Reilly runs his show, pointing out that "Nobody gets a fair shake. He just wants to beat them up, call them names." (NYT, 2/24/15, page B8).
So now it's a battle over who has the loudest voice or the more influential coverage, broadcast or print. Put another way, which do you want: Opinion or objective, neutral coverage?
Fox News has long touted its coverage as "fair and balanced" and used the slogan, "We report, you decide."
Hah!
But to be fair and balanced, we must point out that MSNBC commentators also have a strong slant in their coverage. However, they make no claims that they are anything other than strongly liberal.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
Middle Voices
It used to be called The Big Lie Technique: Say something often enough, loud enough and long enough, and eventually people will start to believe it, especially if one political faction dominates or controls information media and bans criticism of the government and its leaders. It was true in parts of Europe 80 years ago, and it is true in Thailand today. Witness the jailing of a two students who dared to insult the monarchy -- even a fictional monarchy -- in a university play.
Almost as dangerous is the tendency to listen only to one side of an issue. If you listen only to one side, your own opinion -- already biased -- will be reinforced. This is not to say you should listen closely to opposition radicals. But you should be aware of their views and slants, so you know how far opposing opinions can diverge from the center. Rather, read and listen to those who critique both sides.
There are media professionals, whose job it is to monitor the views, opinions and activities of all elements of society, including the radicals and wackos all along the belief spectrum, and report the gist of what they say and do to the Great Middle.
Rarely can the opinions of the True Believers be swayed. They are often infected by the Riley Virus, which proclaims: "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
The cure for this epidemic is, and always has been, vigilance, and that's where an independent, neutral news media becomes crucial. When reporters do their jobs right, the public becomes informed on both sides of any issue, even to the extent of monitoring the radical fringe (both fringes) and exposing their efforts to bend Truth to their agendas.
True, there are times when skilled manipulators can mislead the media, phrasing their message so it sounds better than it really is. That, however, is where vigilance by both reporters and readers is essential.
That is also the time when a good memory is important, since radicals can and often do change their messaging and phrasing, hoping that the general public doesn't pay close attention to what was said in the past.
Example: Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani challenged the media to find a time when President Barack Obama ever did say he loved America. It took perhaps an hour for reporters to dig up half a dozen recent occasions when he did say just that.
Example two: Cartoonist Bob Tornoe noted that the Radical Right praised President George W. Bush when he criticized acts of violence against innocents because they "undermine the basic tenets of the Islamic faith." War, therefore, is against evil, not Islam. This declaration, according to the Radical Righteous depicted in the cartoon, makes Bush "a true American hero and a devout Christian."
But when Obama points out that America is "not at war with Islam. We are at war with terrorists who have perverted Islam," the facing cartoon panel shows the same Right Winger shrieking that Obama is "an Islam-backing Christian hater who doesn't love America."
By the way, the Constitution specifies in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office." In addition, the First Amendment makes it even more clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So much for all the noise about a politician's religion, no matter which, whether on none. The hint, suggestion, assertion or implication that a President or anyone holding an office or position of public trust must be a member of a certain specified church or follow the precepts of any spiritual practice is not only irrelevant, such a demand is unconstitutional.
And as for the Fox News slogan, "We report, you decide," don't get me started.
Almost as dangerous is the tendency to listen only to one side of an issue. If you listen only to one side, your own opinion -- already biased -- will be reinforced. This is not to say you should listen closely to opposition radicals. But you should be aware of their views and slants, so you know how far opposing opinions can diverge from the center. Rather, read and listen to those who critique both sides.
There are media professionals, whose job it is to monitor the views, opinions and activities of all elements of society, including the radicals and wackos all along the belief spectrum, and report the gist of what they say and do to the Great Middle.
Rarely can the opinions of the True Believers be swayed. They are often infected by the Riley Virus, which proclaims: "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
The cure for this epidemic is, and always has been, vigilance, and that's where an independent, neutral news media becomes crucial. When reporters do their jobs right, the public becomes informed on both sides of any issue, even to the extent of monitoring the radical fringe (both fringes) and exposing their efforts to bend Truth to their agendas.
True, there are times when skilled manipulators can mislead the media, phrasing their message so it sounds better than it really is. That, however, is where vigilance by both reporters and readers is essential.
That is also the time when a good memory is important, since radicals can and often do change their messaging and phrasing, hoping that the general public doesn't pay close attention to what was said in the past.
Example: Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani challenged the media to find a time when President Barack Obama ever did say he loved America. It took perhaps an hour for reporters to dig up half a dozen recent occasions when he did say just that.
Example two: Cartoonist Bob Tornoe noted that the Radical Right praised President George W. Bush when he criticized acts of violence against innocents because they "undermine the basic tenets of the Islamic faith." War, therefore, is against evil, not Islam. This declaration, according to the Radical Righteous depicted in the cartoon, makes Bush "a true American hero and a devout Christian."
But when Obama points out that America is "not at war with Islam. We are at war with terrorists who have perverted Islam," the facing cartoon panel shows the same Right Winger shrieking that Obama is "an Islam-backing Christian hater who doesn't love America."
By the way, the Constitution specifies in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office." In addition, the First Amendment makes it even more clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So much for all the noise about a politician's religion, no matter which, whether on none. The hint, suggestion, assertion or implication that a President or anyone holding an office or position of public trust must be a member of a certain specified church or follow the precepts of any spiritual practice is not only irrelevant, such a demand is unconstitutional.
And as for the Fox News slogan, "We report, you decide," don't get me started.
Weather Wizards
It may not be true of other metro areas, but the Philadelphia TV news stations seem to
have just a handful of stories, which they cover endlessly, repeatedly, every
day. These are: Weather, sports, fires, shootings & robberies (in that
order), and maybe, occasionally, possibly, perhaps, city government or state
government, and if it's really really big big big, a national story. But their
primary interests, probably reflecting the interests of their viewers, are weather
and sports.
As for the propensity to name things, it's a truism that when you give
something a fancy name, it becomes more important.
And as for weather reporting, these days the broadcasters are
emphasizing the "wind chill factor" (or as they repeatedly call it, the "feels
like" temperature. This is, of course, more dramatic than the actual
temperature, since the "feels like" number is often near zero or below. Fahrenheit, of course. Just think how much more dramatic it would be if they
used Celsius.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Country Love
Criticism of government is not only a right, it is an obligation.
You have a right to express your opinion. You do not have a right to suppress mine.
The former mayor of New York City said he doubts that President Obama loves America. Rudolph Giuliani's reasons for this are not yet fully clear, and may have something to do with Obama's recent comments on terrorism in the name of religion.
In any case, Obama criticized those who lumped all followers of Islam into one terrorist faction. This is not what America is all about.
But to Giuliani, such a view is unpatriotic, and any criticism of America shows a lack of love for America.
Consider this: Not only do we all have a right to criticize what happens in America, we have an obligation to do so. This includes the right -- indeed the obligation -- to criticize government, its policies, and the actions of a few or of the many.
Giuliani has the right, of course, to disagree with the President and to criticize his actions and policies. Republicans especially have been making a campaign of it.
Time was, during the tenure of the last Republican President, the attitude of many consrvatives was this: You cannot criticize the President, because he is the President. You must always agree. This swiftly changed, however, when a Democrat was elected. Now, disagreement, criticism, attack and opposition to whatever this current Democratic President says or does is mandatory among the Radical Right.
However, to label opinions you disagree with as unpatriotic can easily lead to suppression of all disagreement. And that in itself is unpatriotic.
You have a right to express your opinion. You do not have a right to suppress mine.
The former mayor of New York City said he doubts that President Obama loves America. Rudolph Giuliani's reasons for this are not yet fully clear, and may have something to do with Obama's recent comments on terrorism in the name of religion.
In any case, Obama criticized those who lumped all followers of Islam into one terrorist faction. This is not what America is all about.
But to Giuliani, such a view is unpatriotic, and any criticism of America shows a lack of love for America.
Consider this: Not only do we all have a right to criticize what happens in America, we have an obligation to do so. This includes the right -- indeed the obligation -- to criticize government, its policies, and the actions of a few or of the many.
Giuliani has the right, of course, to disagree with the President and to criticize his actions and policies. Republicans especially have been making a campaign of it.
Time was, during the tenure of the last Republican President, the attitude of many consrvatives was this: You cannot criticize the President, because he is the President. You must always agree. This swiftly changed, however, when a Democrat was elected. Now, disagreement, criticism, attack and opposition to whatever this current Democratic President says or does is mandatory among the Radical Right.
However, to label opinions you disagree with as unpatriotic can easily lead to suppression of all disagreement. And that in itself is unpatriotic.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Big Brother Smackdown
A British court has ruled that the UK spy agency that trolls the Internet and shares the harvest by the American NSA (National Security Agency) was doing so unlawfully for seven years. Oddly, now that the agency's "rules" for gathering every piece of data sent by anyone, anywhere have been made public, the project is now legal, according to published reports in Britain.
The GCHQ (General Central Headquarters) began sweeping up the data in 2007, according to a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, picking up much of it from the NSA.
The ruling was made public earlier this month, and published accounts appeared in various newspapers in the UK and in Ireland.
The ruling was supported largely by documents leaked by Edward Snowden, according to the reports. The tribunal filed its judgment in December, and it was made public 6 February. Want to read it yourself? Here's a link, provided by The Guardian newspaper: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/liberty-vs-gchq-read-the-order-and-judgment-of-the-tribunal-pdf.
So while the seven year stretch of scooping up all the records of phone calls, Internet searches, emails, and all the other things in the category of "metadata" was clearly unlawful, the UK government claims that now that the "rules" have been made public and the people know about the super dooper snooper scooper program, it's now okay, and the spy agencies can continue.
Say what?
The GCHQ (General Central Headquarters) began sweeping up the data in 2007, according to a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, picking up much of it from the NSA.
The ruling was made public earlier this month, and published accounts appeared in various newspapers in the UK and in Ireland.
The ruling was supported largely by documents leaked by Edward Snowden, according to the reports. The tribunal filed its judgment in December, and it was made public 6 February. Want to read it yourself? Here's a link, provided by The Guardian newspaper: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/liberty-vs-gchq-read-the-order-and-judgment-of-the-tribunal-pdf.
So while the seven year stretch of scooping up all the records of phone calls, Internet searches, emails, and all the other things in the category of "metadata" was clearly unlawful, the UK government claims that now that the "rules" have been made public and the people know about the super dooper snooper scooper program, it's now okay, and the spy agencies can continue.
Say what?
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
News and Entertainment
As a reporter, my opinions are not relevant to what I do.
Everyone has opinions, and that is their right. They also have a right to express those opinions. However, there may be consequences. Journalists too have opinions, but those opinions are not relevant to what they do. In short, reporters are not paid for their opinions, they are paid to report the comments, views and opinions of others. When reporters insert their opinions into their writing or broadcasting, they become commentators, and there is a place for that, too. At newspapers, that place is called the editorial page, and Page One is the place for straight reporting.
For decades, television network news anchors and correspondents were reporters, and did not insert themselves into the stories they covered. The mistake by NBC News anchor Brian Williams was in not only talking about his role in news events, but in sometimes embellishing that role. Traditionally, network TV news folk had no role in the events they covered. They were, and should be, reporters, not participants.
In recent years, however, television news has become more an entertainment medium than a place for straightforward journalism. Indeed, there is plenty of room for entertainment in covering daily events, and many have become quite successful at it. Jon Stewart, for example, or John Oliver or Bill Maher. However, they and others present themselves first as comedians and entertainers, not as reporters. They talk about the news of the day, inserting their jokes and wisecracks as entertaining comments about the events.
Brian Williams, on the other hand, has been a TV network news anchor in the tradition of Tom Brokaw, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, all of whom kept their opinions off the air. One notable exception, of course, was when Cronkite returned from a reporting trip to Vietnam and, in a clearly labeled editorial opinion at the end of a CBS Evening News broadcast, commented that the war in Vietnam was not one that the U.S. could win.
Unfortunately, as broadcast news became a profit center for corporate owners, the line between news and entertainment blurred. When cable and satellite TV channels intensified the competition for viewers, networks lost sight of journalistic goals and sharpened their focus on entertainment. This choice, however, did not apply as tightly to cable and satellite operations because they were born in a new television world. Previously, those with broadcast licenses issued by the Federal Communications Communication had to "serve the public interest, convenience and necessity," and were more sober in their presentations.
Competition and the proliferation of programming outlets changed that. This is not to say that conservative commentators don't have a sense of humor. But comments from personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly often are attacks on liberals which, of course, their fans find humorous, but are not intended as comedy.
Others present themselves as comedians who indulge in journalism as a comedic vehicle. But journalists who indulge in comedy do so at their peril. No one ever accused Chet Huntley of indulging in comedy on the air.
So in talking about his role in news events, and at times embellishing that role, Brian Williams became ensnared in the net that separates the two careers. Williams became quite successful in appearing on and sometimes hosting entertainment shows, and telling stories about his role in covering major stories, including supposedly being in a helicopter that was brought down by enemy fire in Iraq. However, it turned out that he was not in the aircraft that was shot down, but in another helicopter following the first, which landed to help the crew of the damaged aircraft.
When the truth of his non-role became public last week, Williams was forced to step down from the NBC Nightly News anchor chair while things were cleared up. Today, however, NBC suspended him without pay for six months.
Will he be able to return, or will he be forced to choose between a journalism career and an entertainment career? Perhaps the choice has already been made for him.
Everyone has opinions, and that is their right. They also have a right to express those opinions. However, there may be consequences. Journalists too have opinions, but those opinions are not relevant to what they do. In short, reporters are not paid for their opinions, they are paid to report the comments, views and opinions of others. When reporters insert their opinions into their writing or broadcasting, they become commentators, and there is a place for that, too. At newspapers, that place is called the editorial page, and Page One is the place for straight reporting.
For decades, television network news anchors and correspondents were reporters, and did not insert themselves into the stories they covered. The mistake by NBC News anchor Brian Williams was in not only talking about his role in news events, but in sometimes embellishing that role. Traditionally, network TV news folk had no role in the events they covered. They were, and should be, reporters, not participants.
In recent years, however, television news has become more an entertainment medium than a place for straightforward journalism. Indeed, there is plenty of room for entertainment in covering daily events, and many have become quite successful at it. Jon Stewart, for example, or John Oliver or Bill Maher. However, they and others present themselves first as comedians and entertainers, not as reporters. They talk about the news of the day, inserting their jokes and wisecracks as entertaining comments about the events.
Brian Williams, on the other hand, has been a TV network news anchor in the tradition of Tom Brokaw, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, all of whom kept their opinions off the air. One notable exception, of course, was when Cronkite returned from a reporting trip to Vietnam and, in a clearly labeled editorial opinion at the end of a CBS Evening News broadcast, commented that the war in Vietnam was not one that the U.S. could win.
Unfortunately, as broadcast news became a profit center for corporate owners, the line between news and entertainment blurred. When cable and satellite TV channels intensified the competition for viewers, networks lost sight of journalistic goals and sharpened their focus on entertainment. This choice, however, did not apply as tightly to cable and satellite operations because they were born in a new television world. Previously, those with broadcast licenses issued by the Federal Communications Communication had to "serve the public interest, convenience and necessity," and were more sober in their presentations.
Competition and the proliferation of programming outlets changed that. This is not to say that conservative commentators don't have a sense of humor. But comments from personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly often are attacks on liberals which, of course, their fans find humorous, but are not intended as comedy.
Others present themselves as comedians who indulge in journalism as a comedic vehicle. But journalists who indulge in comedy do so at their peril. No one ever accused Chet Huntley of indulging in comedy on the air.
So in talking about his role in news events, and at times embellishing that role, Brian Williams became ensnared in the net that separates the two careers. Williams became quite successful in appearing on and sometimes hosting entertainment shows, and telling stories about his role in covering major stories, including supposedly being in a helicopter that was brought down by enemy fire in Iraq. However, it turned out that he was not in the aircraft that was shot down, but in another helicopter following the first, which landed to help the crew of the damaged aircraft.
When the truth of his non-role became public last week, Williams was forced to step down from the NBC Nightly News anchor chair while things were cleared up. Today, however, NBC suspended him without pay for six months.
Will he be able to return, or will he be forced to choose between a journalism career and an entertainment career? Perhaps the choice has already been made for him.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Metadata
Big Brother is watching,
The First Amendment does not grant us freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the free exercise of religion. Rather, it guarantees rights we already have, and prohibits the government from restricting them.
What is "metadata"?
It's a collection of all data, including phone calls, email messages, Internet search terms, the number of times a computer user has clicked on a link, as well the type of link, plus whatever biographical information a user has posted on a Facebook page, a list of who his or her friends are, where they all were born, the date of their birthday, their marital status, where they went to school, and what their opinions are, as posted on gossip sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and what they shop for, what they actually buy, plus what their interests are, as indicated by the subject matter of the search terms they use.
Granted, the actual conversations on phone calls may not legally be collected or monitored, at least in America. Supposedly a warrant is needed. However, there is a secret court in Washington that routinely grants warrants to government agencies to listen and otherwise monitor whoever they suspect may be a "threat to national security." Then again, many if not most of the agents in charge of "national security" suspect everybody, so to them anybody and everybody is a threat.
Every day, government agencies collect many millions of bits of information on the traffic flowing through the Internet, and sift through this moon-sized haystack in the expectation of finding a needle.
How often do they succeed? What is their success rate? Published reports quote several present or former agents as admitting the agencies have caught just a handful of "possible" perpetrators. So far, however, their success record has been at best minimal.
Consider this scenario: I may be curious about the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, their history, background, and their current views of events there and how they will deal with a proposal for unification with the now-independent Republic of Ireland. I may also be curious about the Irish Republican Army, and its efforts to reunify the island nation.
Does that curiosity, in and of itself, make me a member or even a potential recruit for membership in the Orange Order or the IRA?
Or consider this: I hear a lot about Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban and other groups. My journalistic, academic or innate curiosity prompts me to do my own research and read for myself their claims, reports, opinions and comments on their own activities as well as what they think of those they label as "enemies."
Does that research -- academic, journalistic or idly curious -- make me a potential recruit?
Or consider an economic historian, who reads "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. Does that make him or a Communist? (Note: During the McCarthy era, it did, especially since Marx's work was banned in America.)
Or consider working journalists, employees of major media outlets -- print or broadcast or blog and web sites -- researching a report on either those groups or any other person or organization. Or scholars and academics. Does that research, in and of itself, justify monitoring their activities, thus making them unwitting or even unwilling agents of government agencies charged with protecting "national security"?
Government agencies, such as the FBI and the CIA in America, or similar agencies in other supposedly democratic countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany, claim the right to harvest any and all information floating through the World Wide Web and sift through it in the name of "national security."
Question: By what right do they make that claim? By what right do they get to trample or ignore these and other "inalienable rights" endowed by the Creator, as the U.S. Declaration of Independence phrased it in 1776, and further detailed by the U.S. Constitution some ten years later?
Just to be clear, the Bill of Rights, identified by the first ten amendments to the Constitution, does not provide us with these rights. Rather, it spells out a guarantee of those rights we already have.
Journalists and scholars are curious about many things, as are all folks who think for themselves. For many of the more rabid, self-appointed guardians of the public morals, this makes anyone who disagrees with them an enemy.
So does all of this commentary make me a "danger to national security" because I do my own research and think for myself?
Stay tuned. If the CIA or the FBI comes pounding on my door, I'll let you know.
The First Amendment does not grant us freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the free exercise of religion. Rather, it guarantees rights we already have, and prohibits the government from restricting them.
What is "metadata"?
It's a collection of all data, including phone calls, email messages, Internet search terms, the number of times a computer user has clicked on a link, as well the type of link, plus whatever biographical information a user has posted on a Facebook page, a list of who his or her friends are, where they all were born, the date of their birthday, their marital status, where they went to school, and what their opinions are, as posted on gossip sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and what they shop for, what they actually buy, plus what their interests are, as indicated by the subject matter of the search terms they use.
Granted, the actual conversations on phone calls may not legally be collected or monitored, at least in America. Supposedly a warrant is needed. However, there is a secret court in Washington that routinely grants warrants to government agencies to listen and otherwise monitor whoever they suspect may be a "threat to national security." Then again, many if not most of the agents in charge of "national security" suspect everybody, so to them anybody and everybody is a threat.
Every day, government agencies collect many millions of bits of information on the traffic flowing through the Internet, and sift through this moon-sized haystack in the expectation of finding a needle.
How often do they succeed? What is their success rate? Published reports quote several present or former agents as admitting the agencies have caught just a handful of "possible" perpetrators. So far, however, their success record has been at best minimal.
Consider this scenario: I may be curious about the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, their history, background, and their current views of events there and how they will deal with a proposal for unification with the now-independent Republic of Ireland. I may also be curious about the Irish Republican Army, and its efforts to reunify the island nation.
Does that curiosity, in and of itself, make me a member or even a potential recruit for membership in the Orange Order or the IRA?
Or consider this: I hear a lot about Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban and other groups. My journalistic, academic or innate curiosity prompts me to do my own research and read for myself their claims, reports, opinions and comments on their own activities as well as what they think of those they label as "enemies."
Does that research -- academic, journalistic or idly curious -- make me a potential recruit?
Or consider an economic historian, who reads "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. Does that make him or a Communist? (Note: During the McCarthy era, it did, especially since Marx's work was banned in America.)
Or consider working journalists, employees of major media outlets -- print or broadcast or blog and web sites -- researching a report on either those groups or any other person or organization. Or scholars and academics. Does that research, in and of itself, justify monitoring their activities, thus making them unwitting or even unwilling agents of government agencies charged with protecting "national security"?
Government agencies, such as the FBI and the CIA in America, or similar agencies in other supposedly democratic countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany, claim the right to harvest any and all information floating through the World Wide Web and sift through it in the name of "national security."
Question: By what right do they make that claim? By what right do they get to trample or ignore these and other "inalienable rights" endowed by the Creator, as the U.S. Declaration of Independence phrased it in 1776, and further detailed by the U.S. Constitution some ten years later?
Just to be clear, the Bill of Rights, identified by the first ten amendments to the Constitution, does not provide us with these rights. Rather, it spells out a guarantee of those rights we already have.
Journalists and scholars are curious about many things, as are all folks who think for themselves. For many of the more rabid, self-appointed guardians of the public morals, this makes anyone who disagrees with them an enemy.
So does all of this commentary make me a "danger to national security" because I do my own research and think for myself?
Stay tuned. If the CIA or the FBI comes pounding on my door, I'll let you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)