Here is something for you to consider as you ponder your targeting matrix.
The "ideal" of "Journalism" is objectivity. Who, what, where, when, why and how.
The reality of journalism, dating all the way back to our Founding and beyond, is issue advocacy under the guise of objectivity. Once the First Amendment came into play, there was Constitutional protection for this issue advocacy.
First point: Let's remember that the First Amendment is a Right "The Government" may not infringe. For all of you "journalists" who have written deliberately mean-spirited pieces on me over the years, the First Amendment doesn't protect your nose from my fist. I have no problem doing 30-90 days for squishing your nose.
My personal consideration, always, is "intent". Was the writer of the piece writing in good faith, or not. If he or she was truly trying to be objective, I've got no beef, even if you get a few facts wrong. But if you are a Lefty slug using "Freedom of the Press" as a tool to attack your enemies, you are a Leftist slug, first and foremost - and Leftist slugs need to leave.
Obviously, Matt Drudge is a Good Guy. I won't bother listing "Bad Guys" - I don't have that much space, even in the digital age.
Before you yell at me for being hypocritical, let me make clear: I am NOT the ideal of a journalist. I am NOT TRYING to be a real "Journalist". Everything I write is advocacy of my beliefs, which happen to be Constitutional, etc. I'm not hiding under the moniker of "Journalist" when I write a story and send it to the printer and print 30,000 copies on broadsheet and send it to homes in a particular town/city (as I used to do every 2 weeks, and will do again soon). I'm a hardcore believer in our Founder's Intent and I write as such. (My thanks to The Trainer for adding "Founder's Intent" to my vocabulary long ago.)
Remember when Thomas Jefferson said the most honest part of any newspaper was the advertisements - he meant it, and it remains true today. He (and Madison) started (secretly) the National Gazette as a means of attacking his political enemies using his Editor as a cut-out. Just an FYI - the III have our own newspaper, in print, and with a nod to Jefferson and Madison, we title it the "III National Gazette".
Do you consider Lefty "Journalists" who are obviously advocating for tyranny under the cover of 1A to be Enemy Combatants? Do they get a free pass when you start moving through your AO turning in Constitutional Oath Breakers to the Tribunals? Do you weigh each "Journalist" individually?
The King would have hung the Pamphleteers in a hot second, if he could have gotten them.
Does your personal definition of "Constitutional Behavior" extend to the "Journalist" who uses his position and megaphone to blatantly advocate for unconstitutional acts and policies?
This is rhetorical, it doesn't need to be discussed. This is one of those conversations you need to have with the voices in your own head (you have them too, right?), and with your most trusted Tribe.
Though - I have stated my position already: If you advocate the undermining of the Constitutional values of the republic, if you advocate the violation of Constitutional parameters articulated in the Constitution and BoR, "Freedom of the Press" will not save you. You should pack a bag and move to another country now, because you should hang right next to the politician who voted to violate those principles, and next to him should be the idiot who voted for the politician who would knowingly and willfully act to violate the Constitution. All three of you are on the same team of anti-Constitutionalists.
Actions have consequences, and there are times when words equal action.
Kerodin
III
