my opinion on the media being legally able to lie.

For my media law paper, my professor and I have very differing opinions on the freedoms that have been allowed the press. He thinks that the press has the right to do a terrible job, do nonfactual reporting, and most essentially; lie. His logic was something along the lines of

"I'll defend your right to do a terrible job."

Huh?

Since when did a profession need to be allowed to do a terrible job so the people aren't afraid to speak out against there government? If I truly live in a government such as this; there's a problem with the system. It would seem to me the allowing of lies to infiltrate the public's consciousness was in no way the founding fathers intentions. But in Time, Inc. v. Hill 1967, the US Supreme Court decided the press can't be punished for lying; even if they know they are, so long as they don't intend malice.

This is what I put as a footnote to my final report on the case.

My personal opinion on this subject: It’s hard for many people to accept the consequences of their actions because they feel they are not at fault because they didn’t “intend” it to work out that way. But this is false logic. If someone didn’t “intend” to decapitate a seven year old girl by driving into the vehicle she is in, head on at seventy miles an hour, does that make him any less responsible? No. So it intrigues me that the Supreme Court has time and time again used this same line of logic in other legal areas. It seems to me, you should have to live with the consequences of your actions regardless of your intentions. How could holding the press responsible for their actions possibly harm the press and impede their ‘breathing space necessary for survival?’ as the case's dissension implicates. This expectation of truth above all else and punishment for consequences regardless of intention wouldn’t harm the press: it would merely make a reporter be damn sure he is right before he opens his mouth or lifts his pen or types one word. And how could that honestly harm the press? We no longer live in a time and age where the press must be given absolute freedom in order for someone to be brave enough to speak out against the government, which was the founding fathers true fear. If someone has something based in fact and research to say and they are willing to face the consequences of saying said item if it’s false; by god they aren’t going to say it if they know it’s not true, and they’re going to do everything in their power to make sure that what they say is accurate. What harm would it do the American citizen if the news they heard was credible? Nothing but help them make democratic decisions. What would happen to this country’s presses if they were forced to be credible? Half of them would disappear immediately, and slowly but surely many others would disappear because they are simply not credible. And if all the fabrications and lies and misrepresentations and biases that we are spoon fed by the press were suddenly to disappear and this vast and unbridled media were to finally have to step up to the plate and find out what’s really going on; and the American Citizen didn’t have to sit and wonder, “Is what they are telling me on TV true? Does that country really have weapons of mass destruction? Do we really need to be involved in Libya?” perhaps then we could claim that we live in a truly democratic country. But, if I as a citizen of this country, have no guarantee if what I am hearing is true other than to go dig through files in some secure office and look at the papers myself; or of knowing if what politicians say is true by the same means, then I am in no way capable of making a democratic decision.