The case of the BUS vs Andrew Jackson, whereby Nicholas Biddle’s attempts to influence the media by “paying newspaper editors to run pro-Bank editorials giving his own views a widespread airing as well as the appearance of being endorsed by disinterested newspaper editors” strikes similarities to the Sinclair Broadcast case where Julian Sinclair Smith intended to alter political opinion through an immoral manipulation of the media prior to the 2004 Presidential election. This appears to show the prevailing temptation to control mass media through legal and financial manipulation of the system in the United States. Maybe the dissemination of unbiased new sources via the internet help prevent this type of injustice in future generations, or maybe internet journals and blog sites will only muddy the waters of true journalism.

We have the responsibility to control what television programs, newspapers, and magazines our families are watching and subscribing to, but there is a higher responsibility of major media outlets to protect the virtue of news without bias or misinformation. In the case of the BUS, a fair and balanced report in the newspaper supporting both Biddle's argument and President Jacksons would have clarified the issue rather than mislead readers. In 2005, CBS had a very public firing of a news crew that also provoked the resignation of Dan Rather, who served as the correspondent for the piece in question, from CBS News for airing potentially forged documents questioning George Bush’s service requirements in the Vietnam War era. While the actions of the CBS network in preserving journalistic integrity were necessary, was the story any worse than the anti-Kerry ads that the Sinclair group was promoting? Perhaps this story would have been accepted as a counterargument to the Swift Boat ads if the documentation could have been supported. If this were the case, the Sinclair group could have presented both segments on its stations to remain neutral. Bias is a natural tendency and doesn't seem to be very immoral, but there is a problem when biased people have a disproportionate control over media outlets and refuse to share the spotlight for debate.

Providing fair and balanced information is a moral responsibility of any company or individual with the capacity to communicate with a very large audience. By virtue, it must be treated with the utmost respect in order to preserve a government that is to be run by the people. “[The First] Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public”. This quote from chapter 4 of the text is a great summation of the spirit of the law in providing open and unrestricted access of information for all people. Maybe we will see a truly open media with the future of internet media, but I have my doubts. American history shows us what enterprising individuals can achieve when submitting only to the legalistic view of the laws.