I debated on just adding an update to yesterday’s post, but quickly realized that wouldn’t be such a good idea. When I re-read it today, I cringed, if only because of the fact that I knew it was written when I was still highly irate over the situation. I still am, but have regained some of my composure.

As someone who is regularly accused of being a RINO because of my obvious distaste for the neo-conservative party line, particularly where social issues are concerned, I know it is difficult for some people to remember that underneath it all, I am still a conservative. I tend not to agree with the opinion programming on the Fox News network, but that is primarily because of the generally inflammatory nature of them. Promoting hatred and intolerance was never part of what I consider being a conservative.

During the Bush administration, there was an environment of fear that kept the media from honestly questioning the policies and decisions that were handed down. “That’s un-American” was echoed regularly, purely because we were supposed to be united in a fight against terrorism. Eventually the questions came to light, and the media seemed to have regained a sense of its purpose – watchdog for the people.

Now, like it or not, Fox News is in the position of being watchdog. The media in general is supposed to have accepted standards of practice, and should be capable of reminding their fellows when they step out of line. It is not the job of the White House to do this, period. When President Obama took the oath of office, he swore to defend the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Until Fox News is dragged into court for going beyond the protections that the First Amendment affords, the government in general has no business making statements about the legitimacy of the organization as news source.

I said yesterday that defending the rights of others to speak freely is part and parcel of having that right. As it stands now, the White House has set itself on a dangerous course that leads to a government-run press. And before anyone starts screaming foul against that statement, consider this. While it might be tempting to say that this is repayment for the Bush years, or the turning of the political wheel, the relative silence of the liberal press after 9/11 was largely self-imposed. What flavor of fear – fear of the administration, terrorists, or financial losses for speaking against a highly popular president – caused it doesn’t matter in the final analysis. The bottom line was that the media chose to turn a blind eye on a myriad of sins over the years. The books depicting them are still trickling out of the presses.

The difference now is that the administration is doing the talking, and making a call that should have been made by the people or the rest of the media. Fox News is free to say what they want as long as they are not committing slander, libel, or a criminal act in doing so. Conversely, everyone else is free to call out the errors, problems with research sources, or any other issues they may have with what Fox News says. The administration is overstepping its bounds by refusing to make itself available to Fox News, period. The sad part of it is that there are far too many people thinking that this isn’t a problem – or worse, a good thing.

Disagreeing with what a news organization has to say is not grounds to state that it is not a news organization.

A while ago Christian Toto explored the issue of journalists not dealing with bias in the media appropriately at length. Every word of what he said there is absolutely true, and should become the introduction for every textbook on journalism from this point on. I pine for the old days of the GOP, when the attitude of the party toward most social issues was that they were for the people to decide on their own, privacy was a real concern, and smaller government was a real goal. I also look back longingly on a time when calling a collection of journalists “ladies and gentlemen” meant that was precisely what they were, and politicians maintained a love/hate relationship easily with the media – as in they never actively stated they would be unavailable to the press (except when they were in trouble), and used editorial pages and similar venues to voice their concerns when they disliked coverage on them.

There used to be a line between the media and government – journalists kept their suggestions for how to govern on the opinion pages and programs, and politicians stayed out of the business of journalism until they left office. The line has faded, but isn’t completely gone – yet. I hope I never see the day when it completely disappears, because that will be the true death of our free press.