The American Flag Amendment Misrepresented
The newspaper industry is panicked to stop the bleeding as circulation continues to plummet. Even the largest newspapers that reach a national audience and once enjoyed unblemished reputations are at a loss as how to reverse the trend.
Yet, papers like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times continue to ignore the mistakes that brought them to the precipice.
In the name of promoting a particular agenda, they have allowed reporters to become lazy and play fast and loose with the truth, just as long as the "news" tows the party line. A case in point is a piece appearing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune airing a list of complaints about what Congress didn’t do.
Writer Kevin Diaz lists as number 10, the proposed amendment that would allow states to ban desecration of the American flag. Here’s what he writes:
10 Flag burning: It’s still constitutionally permissible to burn an American flag in protest, even though the House approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban flag desecration. The Senate has yet to take up the issue.
Contrary to what Diaz thinks, it’s not correct to say that it’s constitutionally permissible to burn American flags in protest. The Constitution says no such thing. The Constitution says we are guaranteed the right of free speech. The Supreme Court has twice in recent history struck down laws prohibiting the desecration of the American flag, interpreting the Free Speech Clause to encompass behavioral expressions such as flag burning.
But the distinction is important. The Constitution has not changed. Prior to 1989, those laws were constitutional. It is only the interpretation of an activist Court that has opened the door for burning the American flag as protest. A flag amendment would not change the Constitution. It would only allow laws preventing the desecration of the American flag to once again be enforced.
In addition, it is not correct that the proposed flag amendment would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag. Congess would merely allow the individual states to ban flag desecration if they so desire.
These may seem minor points - even to the point of nit-picking. And if the piece was a letter to the editor, they would be easily forgiven. But this comes from the paper’s Washington correspondent who’s job it is to get the facts straight.
Reporters once were concerned first and foremost with being as factually accurate as possible. But that is no longer the case in America’s newsrooms. That’s why we hear of reporters like the New York Times Jason Blair or CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his sidekick Mary Mapes (neither of whom are even willing to admit now that the documents they presented as evidence were forged) who were not outed by their employers, but by other interested parties. I think it’s a safe bet that we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
The American public is slowly but steadily drifting away from newspapers for a variety of reasons but right at the top of the list is the growing realization that it’s no longer news that’s being presented but idealogical propaganda.