It lately seems that the term "Freedom of the Press" gets used by many journalists and media types as an excuse to get away with everything from papparazi tactics to blantantly fictionalizing the news. Would it be unreasonable to make a constitutional ammendment to correct this so that the media cannot abuse this right?
2006-11-15 02:56:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
In my opinion a lot of the Constitution has problems fitting into todays world. The concept was great but in some instances it's dated.
Pretty soon we'll need hundreds of ammendments.
2006-11-15 03:07:23 · answer #1 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree that some of today's media abuses the 1st Admendment; however, a constitutional admendment is not the answer. Who would decide what is abuse? The 1st Admendment has done way more good that bad. As for papparazi, although, most actors say they do not like it, the real truth is that without it, they have no careers. The old saying that any publicity is better than no publicity is certainly true for hollywood actors. Also, our politicans are human and like all humans some of them need to be tarred and feathered. If there is a constitutional admendment, how are we going to find out when a politican or actor does something really wrong.
2006-11-15 11:15:11 · answer #2 · answered by bettyswestbrook 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In some ways as you mentioned they are stretching the news for sensational means and using the first amendment as cover. On the other hand, they do not cry for first amendment protection when asking hard questions of the administration, venturing a thoughtful opinion, or even discussing real facts and reality. The first amendment protect all of our religious freedom. Not just the president of the United states use of faith to maintain power and control. If we had a constitutional amendment to reduce your mentioned abuses that would also have to cover that lack of reality that comes form leadership in government.
I would like to see some constitutional protection for privacy.
2006-11-15 11:10:28 · answer #3 · answered by copestir 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I also agree that sometimes the media is irresponsible, but a free press is one of the most important parts of the constitution. Without a constitutional guarantee to freedom of press, there is no one body who is responsible for holding the government accountable. An amendment to restrict the press is one step toward tyranny.
2006-11-15 11:43:18 · answer #4 · answered by easilydissuaded 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i agree. maybe an amendment is what is needed. i see people taking grief from media that would send me into a physically violent episode. hope it never happens, though.
2006-11-15 11:05:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes and its very biased.
2006-11-15 11:04:53 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
wat the h*** does flagrantly mean!?
2006-11-15 11:10:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋