Don't tell anyone I said this, but....

More often than not, the biased and horridly personal mudslinging from out "fair and balanced" news sources is nothing more than an unpleasant by-product of a trait of our journalism laws that is absolutely essential to a free press. To wit, journalistic access to every part of a political candidate's life. Let me say that again. Journalistic access to every part of a political candidate's life is absolutely essential for a free press. What's my reasoning, you ask? On second thought, you probably don't. You're an average American, and experience tells me that you'll probably accept every written word that comes your way. But I'll give you my reasons anyway.

Consider, as a purely practical issue, the problems inherent in trying to judicially regulate what journalists can and cannot print with regards to a candidate. Let that swirl around for a moment, and when the nearly apocalyptic visions of legal chaos and howling civil rights protesters have faded, continue reading. 

More important that the how's of journalistic regulation though, are the why's. For what reasons is restricting journalism ever appropriate? I mean, if we start trying to tell journalists what they can and cannot print (or broadcast, blog about, whatever) about political candidates, where does it stop? If journalists are forbidden to talk about, say, Palin's pregnant daughter because it's deemed a personal issue, they would also have to be banned from discussing the issue of Palin's pregnancy, should it ever arise. And I think everyone can agree that pregnancy is certainly something that impacts the ability of someone to perform their duties in public office, and as such should certainly be open to the public forum. The issue with setting restrictions on journalists, however well intentioned those restrictions may be, is that they set a bad precedent for more violations of the 1st Amendment. If journalists can't print things regarding the candidate's "personal lives" then how long will it be until voters are being spoon-fed the politically beneficial bits and pieces of personal history from candidate's campaigns?

But setting aside civil right's doom and gloom, think about the information gleaned from this unrestricted reporting. Yes, I agree that no one cares about slight misapplications of judgement or brief associations that occurred ten or twenty years ago. However, when journalists dig into recent actions of candidates, both public and (inasmuch as any action of a politician can be) private, voters gain valuable insight into what a candidate's personality is and how they act in certain types of situations. And when someone is asking to be put into an office as critical as the presidency, that sort of surgical examination of character is vital to voter's ability to make the choice that is right for them.