Has The Line Been Crossed?

IMO, the answer to the above question is clearly, yes! Those of us not addicted to Kool-Aid realize there are certain words that cannot be used when describing the MSM. Words like, fair, unbiased, honest, truthful, accurate, and neutral, are some of the words that come to mind. And, as many of us know, when the above words (values, goals) are no longer part of the MSM's basic work "ethic", it can have dire consequences on our country and our very lives, since tens-of-millions of people still rely on what they see, and especially what they're told, by the MSM.

Although this article is about the growing global-warming scam, and how some very powerful people are fighting hard to keep it alive, thus making sure that Trillions of our dollars are sent in their direction, along with total control over our lives, it also raises (IMO) some questions that may be far more important, questions, that up until the 60's, were not really necessary to ask, since back then, the MSM simply did it's job, which was to report "the factual news". The Viet Nam war changed all that. It was, for the most part, that war, and the phony issues created around it, that changed the MSM from "reporters of fact" to "Left-wing political activists".

When our Founding Fathers created the Constitution's First Amendment, which among other things, gave the press far-reaching privileges and protections, did they envision the all-powerful, answerable-to-no-one, highly-biased, Left-wing monster that exists today? Did they think the press would manipulate and abuse it's privileges and protections to the point where today, they are limitless? Was that really their intention?

So my questions are these;

1. Since the MSM has clearly decided to use it's privileges, rights, and protections to strongly advocate for a specific political agenda, have they gone beyond their protected and intended role to provide factual news?

2. And if so, should they still be entitled to those sacred rights, privileges, and protections when acting as zealous, politically motivated advocates of a specific agenda?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/critics-decry-sided-media-coverage-climate-change-debate/