Another pointed satircal piece from Scott Ott interlaced with some very good questions that will hopefully get a few folks to think more critically of the NY Times and other idiotarian news outlets in 2006.

(2005-12-29) — The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the First Amendment allows, but does not require, major news organizations like to The New York Times to report on newsworthy events.

The decision follows the Times failure to report a December 20th ruling in which the 6th Circuit permitted the display of the 10 Commandments in a legal-historical setting in a county courthouse. In that ruling, ACLU v. Mercer County, the court mocked the American Civil Liberties Union, calling its reliance on the so-called separation of church and state “tiresome” and “extra-constitutional.”

The Times, and most other major news organizations, posted no stories about the 10 Commandments ruling on their “news” websites.

In its unanimous Mercer County ruling (PDF), the three-judge panel wrote, “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state … Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”

The professional journalists argued that although a reasonable person might consider the Mercer County ruling newsworthy, “We don’t have to report on events which conflict with, or contradict, our beliefs or predominant worldview.”

An unnamed spokesman for The New York Times said, “Clearly the 6th Circuit’s decision to uphold a 10 Commandment display is out of step with the mainstream of our readers, and therefore, does not constitute ‘news’ to us. Today’s ruling affirming our right to withhold information would ordinarily be news, but we could not report it without referring to the 10 Commandments public-display victory, so we’re going to exercise our right to squelch that one as well.”

The spokesman said the Times would consider publishing information about the ACLU v. Mercer County case “only if it came from an unnamed source and contained highly-classified information, or if the Supreme Court overturns it on appeal” — Scott Ott / ScrappleFace