their emphasis was on exercising caution and restraint in the midst of a huge barrage of coverage, not on downplaying the events so that there wasn't a barrage in the first place.

Them praising someone for a measured and reasoned response is like your doctor praising you for only getting the clap.

South African doctors probably consider that a victory.

The "free press" suffers, essentially, from the same problem people complain about in the Citizens United case. Money makes voices heard by more people.

The press is a bunch of corporate organizations, like anything else. It has all the vices of corporations, and all the advantages - having it done for profit is better than the alternative of having government do it.

People think that freedom of the press is something that applies to organizations and people that label themselves the press, and do things that look like "being the press". They think it's a freedom granted to perform a public service.

It isn't. We all have freedom of the press as individuals. It's just Freedom of Speech by another name. Big corporations, PACs, everyone - they are no different from the actual press. People have confused themselves into thinking the press is a public service, when really Freedom of the Press is just the freedom to use your money to say what you want.

I agree, with the caveat that the organized press is extended special privileges. Access to people, places, and events that ordinary people with the same "rights" are not afforded. With those privileges, in my view (and indeed in the view held by most of the industry), comes certain responsibilities that include providing that "public service" you refer to.

It's the responsibility of the public to enforce these responsibilities on the press through social pressure and market forces, but the public doesn't do so.

While this is true, unfortunately, there is no way to make sure that they do, in fact, exercise those responsibilities without infringing on (or at least appearing to infringe on) their freedom in the first place.

Well, privileges can be revoked; but that only works if a small portion of the industry is not living up to the stated responsibilities. When the entire industry is screwed up, you can't effectively do that - otherwise you're limiting information to the public.

This would also set a dangerous precedent. The government doesn't like how you report the news, so they revoke your access? How could that be abused?

That would be punished swiftly and severely by the remaining news outlets with or without access. Take something easy like the white house press corps. The white house cannot invite in every news outlet imaginable. It is a privilege to be there, and I'm sure it's based on some fair system - regardless, they couldn't throw everyone out, but they already limit their interviews, questions, etc. to those news agencies they like. So what you're concerned about is already being done.

People know perfectly well that the press is in total control of how their comments will be presented to the public, which is why they decline, but the press doesn't like that so it portrays such declinations in a negative light.

I don't think that's negative, how else would they say it? If they say nothing, I'd think they didn't even bother to ask the other guy for his side of the story. Declined to comment tells me that they tried to be fair and get both sides, but one individual didn't want to go on record.

The prime problem with the American audience causing the sensationalism feedback loop between the "public" and "press" is the grand lack of critical thinking skills. What isn't said is as critical as what is said. As DE points out, news has been compressed into easily digestible servings, whether it's written articles on the Internet or in printed periodicals, radio news, or on any number of the god forsaken TV news networks and affiliated syndicates.

If you examine almost any piece of information published in the aforementioned mediums, under even modest scrutiny, even a person unfamiliar with the subject matter could provide a list of questions the article doesn't answer, whether from be absence of details or the abbreviated scope of the "investigation".

The choice to digest this garbage as a substitute for being informed is the critical flaw maintains the current state of affairs and it stems from a lack of ability and appreciation for critical analysis.

This goes back to the fact that being informed is work. You do not become informed about a subject by simply being aware of it, or through short articles or soundbites, or even longer articles and pieces that are simply re-hashes of the same basic information. Being informed about a subject involves taking the time to read at least some material that's boring, pedestrian, and not what you find on the front page of the CNN website.

People want to be entertained. They want all their news to be like their sports - and that's really what TV news is; it just turns everything into sports where people root for their favorite team (i.e. they simply cheer loudly for whatever side of an issue strikes their fancy, and take umbrage at anything that doesn't go their way).