The First Amendment of our U.S Constitution gives the press freedom of speech. I firmly believe this refers to commentary on the editorial pages only, which I believe is sacred, but even then it doesn't protect the press from libel for commentary (through the use of lies, distortions and outright fabrication) designed to hurt, distort and\/or mislead the readers in some way. <\/p>\n
As for the rest of a newspaper, I believe it is reserved for truthful news free of the author's opinion. Any opinion and bias blended into \"news articles\" should not be constitutionally protected. Beware of descriptive adjectives, descriptive adverbs and descriptive phrases blended into news articles to bias the reader for or against the topic being written about. <\/p>\n
Also, some people read only the headlines to get the \"gist\" of the article. Others read a few paragraphs, then move on. Others read the entire article as continued onto other pages. For example, refer to the following article in Sunday's Reporter-Herald, \"Trump's America after a Month.\" <\/p>\n
Read the headline and write down how you understand what the article is about. Then read the first few paragraphs and do the same. Then read the entire article and do the same. Now go back through the article and cross out all descriptive adjectives, adverbs and phrases, then reread the article and document how you understand what has been written. Is your understanding of what has been written the same as before? If not, you now understand why the press has such a low rating among the American readers. <\/p>\n
Try this on several different articles on different days. <\/p>\n
Dennis Carr <\/p>\n
Loveland <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original post: The First Amendment of our U.S Constitution gives the press freedom of speech. Continue reading
\nFirst Amendment shouldn't protect biased news articles - Loveland Reporter-Herald<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"