Graber reading

     The First Amendment unfortunately takes a back seat during times of war in order to avoid potential disaster in light of government wrongdoing.  During war efforts, the government believes suspending the First Amendment is necessary in order to maintain national security.  During World War I in particular, Congress enacted the Espionage Act which made it illegal to defame the U.S. image in any way.  Unfortunately, this led to more than 2000 convictions.  Journalists who had criticized the war effort or the involvement in the war were targeted.  I believe it is highly unnecessary to enact such a law, because it directly infringes upon the rights granted to the American people under the Constitution.

     Special considerations during war should not be made in order to hide the corrupt nature of acting governments.  If the right of free speech is taken away when it should be used to the fullest, the government can lie exponentially.  During the Vietnam War, the Johnson administration manipulated information to keep the general public in support of the war.  Had reporters been able to uncover the shortcomings of the conflict, the decade long conflict could have ended much sooner.  

     I am not in support of the government suspending the rights of journalists and the media.  When such censorship happens, wrongdoing is sure to follow.  For example, the Wikileaks scandal involving Julain Assange should have been constitutionally viable.  But because the government has an interest in covering up the tragedies of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the American people will have difficulty learning the truth of the matter.

Obama's anti-gun executive law-breaking

By making executive orders that are blatantly anti-gun, Obama has openly defied his Presidential Oath and the Constitution of the United States, which he seems to ignore vehemently.  If we are to regain the American way, we must make violations of our supreme law of the land more apparent.  This president is not in favor of constitutionality and promotes liberalism to its highest degree.  As the Constitution states in the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  As radio host Alex Jones has made clear, it would be a grave mistake for the Federal government to take away American firearms.  Unfortunately, criminals do not follow the law.  They break it.  What makes the liberal agenda think that taking guns away will stop mass shootings?

Truth in the Media

What is reported in the media is not always truthful.  Because reporters can easily fall into the category of having subjective points of view, it becomes difficult to determine where the real facts are.  Stories can easily be spun to make a more compelling and interesting news story, even if it isn't 100% true.  The Pentagon Papers and Watergate are perfect examples of honest journalism.  People may not realize they are being lied to by higher authority, but journalists who set aside personal biases and viewpoints can discover truth for the betterment of society.  Had Richard Nixon gotten away with his illegal wiretapping, the country may have turned out to be very different today.  Luckily, free press still exists yet is continually reporting news that is not completely factual.  We see stories reported that may not have very much importance, or see facts thrown around that are wholly inaccurate.  News media will report what they believe to be facts before concrete proof is given.

GUN CONTROL

the government has already made the purchase of assault rifles illegal. "assault weapon" is a term the liberal media like to use to describe semi-automatic rifles with a pistol-grip, collapsible stock, and a 30 round magazine. These rifles fire at the very same rate of a shotgun, hunting rifle, or pistol. Therefore, banning these would do slim to nothing. Unfortunately, guns aren't the problem. The people are the problem.

Schudson presents some interesting points in his writing.  Media does often constrain us in our efforts to make a bigger argument.  Journalists especially present a narrow viewpoint, but that is only so the reader can hopefully get more out of it. This is because journalism does more often than not focus on events, particularly centering around the rich and powerful.  Why focus on an average-joe when a politician's sex scandal has surfaced?  It will sell more papers and attract a wider audience.  People are more interested in the happenings of those in the public eye.  Also, those who are in professional positions that hold much power deserve in the opinion of the public to face scrutiny.  People do not trust those who run our government regardless of the circumstances.  The freedom of the press to report on the manipulative nature of politicians gives the people the idea that they have some power and say in the political matters.  It also keeps politicians honest.  One Journalist can report a quote or policy of a politician, and if that said politician says something contrary to his stance then the media will be able to pick up on this lie.  Journalism exists to keep the powerful honest, even though they aren't always.