College Protestors Demand Loyalty Oath of Journalists

The Federalist reports, “Campus Protesters To Media: Sign This Loyalty Oath, Or Else.”

Campus protesters at Smith College banned reporters from covering a 12-hour sit-in on Wednesday unless they explicitly agreed to cover the protests favorably.

According to MassLive.com, the event, which drew between 300 and 500 participants, was organized to show support for Mizzou students who have been protesting what they say is racism on campus.

One of the sit-in organizers at Smith College told journalists that they were being banned because of “the way that media has historically painted radical black movements as violent and aggressive.”

“We are asking that any journalists or press that cover our story participate and articulate their solidarity with black students and students of color,” said Alyssa Mata-Flores, a senior at Smith College. “By taking a neutral stance, journalists and media are being complacent in our fight.”

You’ve got to admit that these protestors are just like Liberal politicians. They have learned from how the Obama Administration treated Sharyl Attkisson for daring to report stories they didn’t like. It is also reminiscent of the way Hillary Clinton went after comedians who told jokes about her.

These politicians feel entitled to favorable reporting. They think it is their right that journalists work as their personal public relations agency. They probably realize that what they are demanding is contrary to the First Amendment and journalistic professionalism. But they push for it anyway and see what they can get away with.

The young college students have seen all this and learned about the role of the press. They think they know how to treat the media and what to expect from them.

So naturally they think it is perfectly appropriate to dictate to the press the conditions for covering their event. In fact, they don’t believe that members of the press should act like reporters at all. Instead, they should be advocates of their cause.

The future of the First Amendment in this country looks rather dim.