interesting sidelight on the most transparent administration in history

[detbuch]

What is interesting about the article I cite for this thread is not only its protest about the lack of media photographers to White House events, but, ironically, the media's own lack of attention to the erosion and transformation of our national system of government which has caused the problem against which it protests.

The article states "But more than just tradition, these restrictions raise constitutional concerns." True. For a long, long time however, the national government has been raising "constitutional concerns" not only about the media's tradition and its first amendment rights, but about other individual constitutional rights. Yet, except for some "conservative" publications and others referred to as "extreme" or "fringe," it has been quite a while since the national mainstream media as a whole has reported and commented on, in a meaningful way, about the transformation of constitutional government into an increasingly dictatorial administrative State. For this long time, the trend of national media has shifted to a point of view which supports most of this transformation. But now that its little ox is being gored, it gears up into high dudgeon and "protests."

That's good. However, to show the media's shortsightedness let's remember Martin Niemoller's "First they came for . . ." apology, and replace victims of Nazi oppression with constitutional ones.

First they came for the Welfare clause, and I did not speak out because I did not think it would affect my first amendment right.

Then they came for the Commerce Clause, and I did not speak out because I did not think it would affect my first amendment right.

Then they came for the fourth amendment . . . and the tenth amendment . . . and the second amendment . . . and other amendments . . . and most of the constitutional guarantees, and I did not speak out because I did not think it would affect my first amendment right.

Then they came after my first amendment right, and there was no Constitution left to defend it.

The article says "We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers," by publishing staff White House photos made of events to which media photographers were not given access . These were referred to as "propaganda." Time Magazine, BTW, was singled out as one of the top enablers in this respect--there is though, a list of 36 major media groups/enablers signing on to the protest. But the irony is the press has been an "enabler" not just in this little matter, but in the transformation of our system of government which originally gave it the freedom of the press into one which it now protests is denying that freedom .