Home >> Opinion >> Is There A First Amendment Right For The Press To Not Report the News?

Is There A First Amendment Right For The Press To Not Report the News?

There is no doubt that the press has Constitutional protection to print the news, and this right must not be infringed upon.  But does the press, and we’re discussing the liberal press here, have a right to NOT report the news, to selectively report only the news that is favorable to their side and to fail to report news that hurts the liberal slant on things?

Some examples of this non-reporting the news are the repeated apocalyptic predictions of Obama about how devastating the sequester would be, compared with how tame the reality of the sequester really was. There was never any mention in the dominant press of the government email in which the White House warned the Department of Agriculture to not allow outcomes that “contradicted” Obama’s dire predictions to occur.  In other words, the White House wants as much pain to be experienced by Americans as possible so they can blame the Republicans for the entire sequester thing, which we know was Obama’s idea.

Another ongoing news cover-up is the fact that the global warming/climate change agenda (the exact term used by liberals keeps changing with their politics) was and is all a contrived lie and that there has been no warming, human-caused or otherwise, for years.  Yet Obama and the United Nations are still trying to tax the world, and in particular the United States, to rectify this blatant lie.

A third non-reported piece of news is all of the lives saved each year by people carrying guns used to defend themselves.  All we hear about are the nuts who kill innocent students and theater attendees, but nothing about the good, gun-owning people who rid us of violent scum (often leftists) who attack them.  And for certain there is never a comparison of the deaths from guns between highly regulated anti-gun-law states and right-to-carry states.  It’s much more dangerous to visit a highly regulated state or city than a less regulated one.

READ:  Calling Out the Know-It-All Left on the Issue of Racism

And there are other critically important stories not being reported by the liberal press, such as Benghazi and what Obama did all night long as his own appointees  were being killed, Fast and Furious and why guns were illegally allowed to go to known killers in Mexico, resulting in a U.S. border agent getting killed, and the latest and most intellectually vacuous agreement ever forced on any population anywhere in the world: Obama’s Iranian nuke deal, which assures the Iranians’ developing a nuclear weapon and getting the delivery vehicle to launch it on Tel Aviv and New York City.

Is there no logical, unspoken requirement that the news being reported be complete and accurate?  In my opinion it would be preferable to get no news at all than to be fed only what liberals want us to hear and read. To not report the news completely and honestly is to effectively lie to the American people, just like their leader Obama lied about keeping your plan and keeping your doctor and saving $2500 a year in healthcare costs (all lies never challenged by the liberal press) or about the Iranian nuke deal.  How is this any different from Nazi rule?


Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About Dave King

Retired AT&T supervisor and Verisign manager, 72 years old, living in the Kansas City area.


  1. The press and the rest of the media have forfeited their rights under the 1st Amendment the day they became the lap dog instead of the watch dog of the government. They are nothing more than a propaganda arm for liberal/progressive wing of our government, and will attack with zeal anybody on the conservative side. In their willingnesa to accommodate the left, they have lost credibility with the people that have more then two active brain cells.

  2. Seems if the Press wants to only report one political perspective, that’s their prerogative.

    However, by doing so under the guise of being politically nuetral, they should also lose their tax deductibility for advertisers since those ads just support a single political perspective and therefore may be considered political donations which are non-deductible.

    If on the other hand, they’ve got a reasonable political balance/neutrality in their news rooms and stories reported, then they should keep their tax deductibility for advertizers.

    As for talk shows of a particular political perspective, their tax deductibility is fine as they don’t pretend to be politically neutral, rather they are a sounding board for all sorts of opinions, frequently favoring no particular party — for example, witness how many conservative talk shows basically are as anti-cronyRINOsaur as they are anti-Obama and anti-Ocrat.