Should The Media Be Allowed to Lobby Congress??

[Bonnie]

November 30, 2005 12:00 PM EST
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10357

It seems to me the media lobbying congress is a conflict of interests, as well as unconstitutional. First let’s examine what a lobbyist is, They’re usually Lawyers who beg barrow or steal, perhaps a better term would be bribe and extort their way into the congressional bureaucracy’s inner offices.
Lobbying is perhaps the world’s third oldest profession. Lobbying is an essential unofficial arm of government. It allows special interest groups a voice that would otherwise be silent. Most of these groups have legitimate concerns that would otherwise not have the opportunity to be addressed.

Like all influences of government some lobbyist are legitimate and have serious issues that need the attention of congress. Others are simply out to advance a cause regardless if it’s in the best interest of the majority. Normally I’m skeptical of but not apposed to Lobbyists. The media can’t stay unbiased and be lobbyists at he same time, its unnatural.

Recently we’ve seen some shoddy journalism by some long respected media outlets. Now that the heat’s on journalist they’re asking congress for special legislation protecting them from libel law suites [ H.R.3323.] This bill if passed would allow more, not less irresponsible journalism. The News disseminators are pressuring congress for a bill that would virtually give them free a range to report anything they whished without fear of being held accountable. If the News Media are the watchdogs of congress then should they be allowed to presumably blackmail congress into signing a bill that truly violates the mandate of the fourth estate?

That’s the tip of the iceberg, for 230 [plus] years there’s been no clear definition of who is and who isn’t a legitimate reporter of news. If this bill is passed as is it would omit Internet contributors and bloggers from being recognized as legitimate presenters of news. If internet contributors aren’t included in this bill America will lose an important source of factual information. It’s been the internet contributors and bloggers who’ve held the mainstream media accountable for keeping it real. The internet has a part to play and should be recognized along with the media.

The internet is becoming the main source of news for many as apposed to print, visual and vocal media. The restraints if any should come from technology and competition not legislation. The internet’s being challenged from all sides. The UN and Europe want America to surrender the rights to issuing domain names to one or both of them. Congress is considering giving an edge to the national media. This is no less than censorship presented as something other then what it is, a way of limiting reporting of controversial congressional dealings. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, its’ fact.

A shield law protecting reporters would violate the constitution. The constitution clearly states the government shall not become involved in mandating or restricting the press. A shield law would violate free speech if all media sources weren’t covered. If they’re all covered, there’s no purpose in a shield law.

The media shield law is actually a Red Herring. Presumably, it’s intended to protect a reporters confidential sources. However that’s a short stroll to giving reporters total immunity from any accountability to the legal forces who’re charged with prosecuting those accused with committing crimes. If on the other hand a blogger were to rat_out a criminal the ACLU would be on them like ugly on a Duck.

The last time I checked we’re all Americans subject to the same laws. There has been entirely too much hyphenating, first of the races, now congress is turning to the professions. It’s time for term limits for congress, 12 years and out.

 

[Mr. P]

I think all lobbying should be illegal, period! Maybe then, politicians would get back to "the work of the people" instead of high dollar special interest groups.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I think all lobbying should be illegal, period! Maybe then, politicians would get back to "the work of the people" instead of high dollar special interest groups.

Indeed.

 

[Bonnie]

I think all lobbying should be illegal, period! Maybe then, politicians would get back to "the work of the people" instead of high dollar special interest groups.

In a perfect world

 

[Mr. P]

In a perfect world

Ya know, it doesn’t even take a perfect world, only an intelligent informed electorate, we have the POWER. It’s the intelligent/informed part that sux I’m afraid, but we can hope.

 

[Gunny]

November 30, 2005 12:00 PM EST
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10357

Definitely HELL NO! The MSM already has too much power, and they can't handle THAT responsibility. No reason whatsoever to give them even more.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Definitely HELL NO! The MSM already has too much power, and they can't handle THAT responsibility. No reason whatsoever to give them even more.

My sentiments exactly. I am sick and tired of the ABUSE of the right of "free speech" by the media. We desperately need to get back to a responsible press. The MSM is now competing with the supermarket rags by just throwing things out there and hoping they stick. Protecting the media from libel lawsuits would only make things worse than they have become.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I think all lobbying should be illegal, period! Maybe then, politicians would get back to "the work of the people" instead of high dollar special interest groups.

Great idea, Mr. P. Some national organization should start a grassroots movement to outlaw lobbying. I'll bet millions of Americans would support it. As you imply, government will never function as it was meant to as long as special interests groups with deep pockets can influence legislation to the extent that they do now. If one wants to place blame for not having a sane energy policy, we can look no further than the strong gas & oil lobby in Washington.

 

[trobinett]

I suppose NOT having any lobbying would be the preferred method for Congress to operate under.

Won`t happen, might not even be practical in today's political environment.

Can`t even imagine HOW lobbying could be policed, or cancelled.

Plus, and also, look at all the lawyers that would be out of work.

Be afraid, V-E-R-Y afraid.

 

[Hobbit]

I suppose NOT having any lobbying would be the preferred method for Congress to operate under.

Won`t happen, might not even be practical in today's political environment.

Can`t even imagine HOW lobbying could be policed, or cancelled.

Plus, and also, look at all the lawyers that would be out of work.

Be afraid, V-E-R-Y afraid.

It's hard enough getting something past against the will of one lobbyist. Now, imagine trying to pass something against the will of ALL lobbyists. Defeating that bill would be the biggest bi-partisan effort since WWII.