Inside the Beltway: Lawmaker seeks ‘Responsible Journalism Registry’ to rein in shoddy coverage

NEWS AND OPINION:

The news media appear to be psychotic, drunk on spin and hungry for buzz — reeling across a chaotic landscape inhabited by old-school newshounds and gleeful upstarts alike. Is it time to rein in the free-for-all? One Republican thinks so. On Tuesday South Carolina state Rep. Michael A. Pitts introduced a bill to establish what he calls a “Responsible Journalism Registry Law.”

According to Mr. Pitts, the bill would “establish requirements for persons before working as a journalist for a media outlet and for media outlets before hiring a journalist; to require the establishment and operation of a responsible journalism registry by the South Carolina Secretary of State’s office; to authorize registry fees; to establish fines and criminal penalties for violation of the chapter; and for other purposes.”

Keep in mind the First Amendment advises that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” among other things. Mr. Pitts, however, is convinced that American journalism is now more opinion than news, and that reporters have forgotten the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, which calls for clarity, fairness and accuracy. The lawmaker also has a specific interest.

Mr. Pitts told The Post and Courier — the state’s largest news organization — that he’s “not a press-hater,” and actually hopes to spark discussion about news coverage of guns and Second Amendment rights. His bill is modeled directly after the “concealed weapons permitting law,” he says.

“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms. With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the 6 o’clock news and the printed press have no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership,” Mr. Pitts told the newspaper.

PALINOLOGY

“Politician turned reality TV star endorses reality TV star turned politician.”

— Headline at Fark.com, an online news aggregator, announcing that Sarah Palin has endorsed Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in his quest for the White House. The new best friends will appear together at an event just outside Des Moines, Iowa, on Wednesday, before whisking off to Tulsa, Oklahoma, for a jumbo rally at the 11,300-seat Mabee Center, located on the campus of Oral Roberts University.

IN GOD HE TRUSTS

“A group of liberal, atheist progressives in Ohio have filed a lawsuit attempting to remove ’In God We Trust’ from our nation’s currency. We must stamp out these blatant attempts to trample on our Constitution and whitewash our history. All the way back to our founding, trust in God has been a bedrock principle of our nation and, as your president, I will protect the Judeo-Christian values that made us great.

“There was a time in America when a lawsuit like this would be laughed off, but that was before out-of-control political correctness had infiltrated every aspect of our culture. If we kowtow to the PC police and cease to defend the values that made us great, we will lose what made us special, and I refuse to let that happen.”

— Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson, on launching a public petition to urge President Obama to defend “our nation’s motto.”

UNITED STATES VS. TEXAS

So we know now that somewhere around April, the Supreme Court will examine the legality of DAPA — President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” — which would allow 4 million illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they meet certain conditions. The high court is keenly interested in preserving Article II of the Constitution, which spells out that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Yeah, well. Mr. Obama’s executive action in the matter represents “a crucial change in the nation’s immigration law and policy,” noted Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller in a recent related brief.

“Only Congress can rewrite the immigration laws,” observes Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network. “The Obama administration has a long history of trying to get its way undemocratically, and this case is no different. The Supreme Court has already blocked many of President Obama’s power grabs. This case will give the court yet another chance to do so.”

NEW TO THE MARKET

ABC News chief legal analyst and attorney Dan Abrams is a canny gent who first distinguished himself in the 1990s as a Court TV reporter covering the trial of O.J. Simpson. Mr. Abrams, a media mogul of sorts, has just added a new entity to his stable of popular online news properties, which already includes Mediaite and Gossip Cop. On Tuesday he pulled the trigger on LawNewz.com — which offers real-time legal analysis of headline news.

“This is a site a long time in the making. After all, my entire professional career has been focused on covering high-profile cases. There is always a legal angle to all the biggest stories of the day. From politics to terrorism to entertainment, our team of lawyers and journalists will offer you smart legal analysis on a daily basis,” Mr. Abrams says.

Among the offerings: live video of significant court cases, play-by-play updates on high-profile criminal trials and, of course, a parade of legal troubles among the rich and famous.

POLL DU JOUR

• 81 percent of Americans would restrict abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy; 66 percent of pro-choice Americans agree.

• 68 percent overall oppose taxpayer funding of abortion; 51 percent of pro-choicers agree.

• 61 percent overall support laws that ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy except to save the life of the mother; 62 percent of pro-choicers agree.

• 60 percent overall say abortion is “morally wrong”; 33 percent of pro-choicers agree.

• 55 percent overall say abortion “does a woman more harm than good”; 27 percent of pro-choicers agree.

• 51 percent overall believe health care providers have the right to opt out of providing abortions if they have moral objections; 34 percent of pro-choicers agree.

Source: A Marist Institute for Public Opinion/Knights of Columbus survey of 1,686 U.S. adults conducted Nov. 15-22, 2015 and released Tuesday.

Ballyhoo and hoopla to jharper@washingtontimes.com