Journalistic License

   Politicians like to use the news media to spread their messages to voters. Then they complain when the consequences of what they say and do are also printed and broadcast.
   Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways.

   One possible "solution" would be to loosen the libel laws so those who feel offended could sue and get lots of money. The traditional legal defense, of course, is that the report is true, provably true and printed without malice. In addition, things said in open court or during debate in Congress or comments made about people prominent in the public eye are not subject to libel suits, since they are a way to encourage debate. This is why candidates get away with saying the outrageous things they say about their opponents.
   Another "solution" that would satisfy unhappy politicians might be a plan to require licensing of news reporters, editors and their publications as a way to "ensure competence."
   The rationale would be that professionals in other fields, such as doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, real estate sales agents, plumbers and electricians are licensed, and if they mess up, they can be sued for malpractice or malfeasance, and the license of the offender can be canceled.
   There are, of course, some countries where that very thing happens to journalistic practitioners. Regulation of the news media is such that government has a very effective way of controlling their political messages -- control of the press and other news outlets.
   As much as corporate and political moguls in America try to control the news media, the best they can do -- so far -- is to manipulate.
   Unfortunately, many news outlets are too easily manipulated. To some extent, however, that manipulation is appropriate, The term "media" is simply the plural of "medium," something in the middle, or a person or system used to convey a message.
   Corporate titans and government biggies are more than happy when good news splashes across Page One or leads the evening news broadcast. But they are unhappy, if not angry, when bad news breaks, so they attack the messenger.
   A larger goal, then, would be for them to forbid the messenger from carrying any message that would be detrimental to the company or to the government.
   But it is journalism's duty and responsibility to report both sides of any issue, and to check the facts claimed by any public speaker, and to be able to do so without fear of losing a license.
   And unless the First Amendment to the Constitution is repealed, there will be no license to be cancelled.
   That, however, is just what some politicians secretly want -- the ability to cancel a license if things don't go their way. Few would admit that, since it would run afoul of tradition, custom, law and, of course, the Constitution.
   Even so, message control and media manipulation are powerful forces guiding political minds and plans.
   To counterbalance these forces and keep the general public and especially voters informed of the many sides of any issue requires a free and independent press. And this includes broadcast media as well as the new channel of social media.
   No one has proposed licensing newspapers and magazines, nor has there been any talk of controlling, licensing, regulating or suppressing postings on social media. Yet.
   But abuses often result in regulation. And regulation itself can be abusive to freedom.